Ὁ 
"πὸ 
vay 

ner ἦν *, 


Pats 


“ 
= 


ee ove 


TREE LT ONT TS 


SECRETS 


oie 5 
RAN he 


ἔχου ἕὰ 


aSeE RNR ar Sree 


>? 
ae ᾿ ‘ ᾿ 
g ᾿ yes, 
t ἢ on 


ΗΝ at 6 se 
ἣν erent ΡΟ aes 
oy Rentini tns 


Saat eS 
ati “we 


Pa Re eer 


Teter 


᾽ν 
An 


ΡΟΣ 


ΤΑ 


ΟΝ 


nS ᾿ 
es ος 
Ὧν vet 


ioe 


Seach eae BE ool 


sper 


νὰ 


in 

oe 

vo ἌΣ 
on 
Se. 


weyers 


ors 


Sr OE TT, 


eats 


ΡΝ ‘ae cay: | 
| Theological Seminary. 


PRINCETON, N. J. ᾿ 


ἂ 
ὦ a") ᾿ 
i τὰ“ ἢ ἧς, “.-- 
‘ es ον 
ae "3 ἃς νι. 
"ΚΣ ἣ 
Ἔν 


Ἔξω 
ees 
tee νὼ 


Ἐκ. 


a ΄ 
ωϑξν 
iV ee » 
ae 


Π 
; 


oe 


es ἣν Ὁ ἥν" 
: faye 
Cee 2 aa oS ty 

5 Oa ᾧ 


τ» 
a VY hae 


᾿ ‘aa ᾿ 
vd TY” ' 
ies 


Ὁ peat ΟΝ epi sil cere τ δὰ 
Select Fe eat orth τῆν 


: 4 Reread 


a Ὁ ω . ear: a ν ges τρῶς ἐκ τ ἍΝ. Rea 


Sage ἢ νὰ ggg ΨΗ͂Σ Uh TAT itt τοὶ SIC anon ἂν ἐπ 


ghar sat) an 4 νι Po re " λ ¥ é 
‘ , _% ᾿ : ; το Σ fa 
Lime, Sect Culinies ele ἐμὰ wifnk ὦ 
id , Ν 7 bags ie 

wince > 


earn Ra FP oe 
pron ΓΝ πάει ἐ ovanea ὟΣ 


τς αὶ ἐν τὸ a ie ay Si he ia 
ae Sp ne ag coh aes τ θυ YU aw 


« 


gee MY, ee 
eat te ἐπ τῆς VO μον gots 


PF te Sg 
ae 


y ‘tees ne de SNe ei. hos ἀν tony 
ἘΣ (i τα gre Nid crtehs rene ones 


ΤΩΝ ¥ 


᾿ ae to ἌΡ Ee 


VALUABLE WORKS 


GOULD AND. ΜΝ ΝΣ 


59 WASHINGTON STREET, BOSTON. 


THE CHRISTIAN’S DAILY TREASURY. 


A Religious Exercise for Every Day in the Year. By E. TEMPLE. A new and im 
proved edition. 12mo, cloth. 


A work for every Christian. It is indeed a “ Treasury ” of good rings. 


THE SCHOOL OF CHRIST; 


Or, Christianity Viewed in its Leading Aspects. By the Rev. A. L. R. Foors, 
author of * Incidents in the Life of our Saviour,” etc. 16mo, cloth. 


THE CHRISTIAN LIFE, 


Social and Individual. By PETER BAYNE, M. A. 12mo, cloth. 


The demand for this extraordinary work, commencing before its publication, is still eager and con-~ 
stant. There is but one voice respecting it ; men of all denominations agree in pronouncing it one of 
the most admirable works of the age. 


GOD REVEALED IN THE PROCESS OF CREATION, 


And by the Manifestation of Jesus Christ. Including an Examination of the Develop- 
ment Theory contained in the ‘‘ Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation.” By 
JameES B. WALKER, author of “Philosophy of the Plan of Salvation.”? 12mo, 
cloth. 


PHILOSOPHY OF THE PLAN OF SALVATION. 


By an AMERICAN C1T1zEN. An Introductory Essay, by CaLvin E. στόν, Ὁ. Ὁ. 
New improved edition, with a SUPPLEMENTARY CHAPTER. 12mo, cloth. 


This book is generally admitted to be one of the best in the English language. The work has been 
translated into several different languages in Europe. <A capital book to circulate among young men. 


A WREATH AROUND THE CROSS; 


" 
Or, Scripture Truths Tllustrated. By A. Morton Brown, Ὁ. Ὁ. Recommen. 
datory Preface, by Jonn ANGELL JAMES. Beautiful Frontispiece. 16mo, cloth. 


THE BETTER LAND; 


Ons he Believer’s Journey and Future Home. By Rry. A. C. THompson. 12mo, 
cloth. 


A most charming and instructive book for all now journeying to the “ Better Land,” and 
erpecially for those who have friends already entered upon its never-ending joys. 


THE MISSION OF THE COMFORTER. 


With copious Notes. By JuLtus CHArLEes Hare. With the Notes translated 
for the American edition. 12mo, cloth. 


DR. WAYLAND’S UNIVERSITY SERMON 


Delivered in the Chapel of Brown University. 12mo, cloth. 


THE RELIGIONS OF THE WORLD. 


And their Relations to Christianity By FreDERICK DENISON MauRICcE, A. My 
Professor of Divinity, King’s College, London. 16mo, cloth. 


(6) 


Gould and Lincoln's Publications. 


THE HARVEST AND THE REAPERS. Home Work for all, and how 
to doit. By Rev. HARVEY NEwcoms. 16mo, cloth. 


FIRST THINGS; or, the Development of Christian Life. By Baron Stow, 
Ὁ. Ὁ. 16mo, cloth. 

CHRISTIAN BROTHERHOOD. By B.Stow,D.D. 16mo, cloth. 

LIMITS OF RELIGIOUS THOUGHT EXAMINED. By Henry L. 
MANsEL, B.D. Nores translated for American edition. 12mo, cloth. 


THE CRUCIBLE; or,Tests of a Regenerate State. By Rev. J. A.GooDHUE. 
Introduction by Dr. Kirk. 12mo, cloth. 


LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. Luther — Calvin — Latimer — 
Knox. By Jounn Τύμσ οι, Ὁ. D. 12mo, cloth. 


JOHN ANGELL JAMES. CHURCH MEMBER’S GUIDE. Cloth 
CHURCH IN EARNEST. 18mo, cloth. 


CHRISTIAN PROGRESS. Sequel to the Anxi- 
ous Inquirer. 18mo, cloth. 
THE GREAT CONCERN. By N. ApAms,D.D. 12mo, cloth. 
JOHN HARRIS S WORKS. THE GREAT TEACHER. With an Intro- 
ductory Essay by H. HUMPHREY, D. D. 12mo, cloth. 
THE GREAT COMMISSION. With an In- 
troductory Essay by WILLIAM R. WILLIAMS, D. D. 12mo, cloth. 
THE PRE-ADAMITE EARTH. Contribu- 
tions to Theological Science. 12mo, cloth. 
MAN PRIMEVAL: Constitution and Prim- 
itive Condition of the Human Being. Portrait of Author. 12mo, cloth. 
PATRIARCHY; or, The Family, its Constitu- 
tion and Probation. 12mo, cloth. 
SERMONS, CHARGES, ADDRESSES, δι. 


Two volumes, octavo, cloth. 


HUGH MILLER’S WORKS. TESTIMONY OF THE ROCKS. With 
Illustratious. 12mo, cloth. 
FOOTPRINTS OF THE CREATOR. With 
Illustrations. Memoir by Louis Acassiz. 12mo, cloth. 
THE OLD RED SANDSTONE. With II- 
lustrations, etc. 12mo, cloth. 
MY SCHOOLS AND SCHOOLMASTERS. 
An Autobiography. Full-length Portrait of Author. 12mo, cloth 
FIRST IMPRESSIONS OF ENGLAND 
AND ITS PEOPLE. 12mo, cloth. 
CRUISE OF THE BETSEY. A Ramble 
among the Fossiliferous Deposits of the Hebrides. 12mo, cloth. 
— POPULAR GEOLOGY. 12mo, cloth. 


HUGH MILLER’S WORKS. “Tvols. Elegant embossed cloth. 
(56) 


Gould and Lincoln's Publications, 


(LITERARY.) 


CYCLOPAEDIA OF ANECDOTES OF LITERATURE AND THE 
FINE ARTS. Containing a copious and choice Selection of Anecdotes of 
the various forms of Literature, of the Arts, of Architecture, Engravings, 
Music, Poetry, Painting, and Sculpture, and of the most celebrated Literary 
Characters and Artists of different Countries and Ages, ete. By Kazuirr 
ARVINE, A.M. Numerous Illustrations. Octavo,cl. $38.00. 

This is unquestionably the choicest collection of Anecdotes ever published. It contains three 
thousand and forty Anecdotes: and such is the wonderful variety, that it will be found an 
almost inexhaustible fund of interest for every class of readers. 

‘VNOWLEDGE IS POWER. A View of the Productive Forces and the 

Results of Labor, Capital, and Skill. By CHARLES ΚΝΙΘΗΤ. With numer- 
ous Illustrations. Revised by Davip A. WELLS. 12mo, cloth. $1.25. 


LANDING AT CAPE ANNE; or, The Charter of the First Permanent 
Colony on the Territory of the Massachusetts Company. By J. WINGATE 
THORNTON. 8yo, cloth. $1.50. 

wg“ A rare contribution to the early history of New England.’’— Mercantile Journal. 

THE CRUISE OF THE NORTH STAR. Excursion to England, Russia, 
Denmark, France, Spain, Italy, Malta, Turkey, Madeira, etc. By Rev. JoHN 
0. CuouLes, Ὁ. D. With Illustrations, etc. 12mo, cloth, gilt. $1.50. 


PILGRIMAGE TO EGYPT. A Diary of Explorations on the Nile, the 
Manners, Customs, and Institutions of the People, the condition of the An- 
tiquities and Ruins. By Hon. J. V. C. SmMirH. Numerous Engravings. 
12mo, cloth. $1.25. ἱ ᾿ 

VISITS ΤΟ EUROPEAN CELEBRITIES. Graphic and life-like Per- 
sonal Sketches of the most distinguished men and women of Europe. By 
the Rev. WILLIAM B. SPRAGUE, D. D. 12mo, cloth. $1.00. 

THOUGHTS ON THE PRESENT COLLEGIATE SYSTEM in the 
United States. By Francis WAYLAND, D. Ὁ. 16mo, cloth. 650 cents. 


SACRED RHETORIC; or, Composition and Delivery of Sermons. By H. J. 
RipLey, D. Ὁ. With Dr. Warer’s Hints on Extemporaneous Preaching. 
12mo, cloth. 75 cents. 

MANSEL’S MISCELLANIES; including “Prolegomina Logica,” ‘“ Meta- 
physics,” “‘ Limits of Demonstrative Evidence,” ‘‘ Philosophy of Kant,” etc. 
12mo, cloth. In preparation. _ 

MACAULAY ON SCOTLAND. A Critique, from HuGu MILLER’s “ Edin- 
burgh Witness.” 16mo, flexible cloth. 25 cents. 


NOTES ON THE UNITED.STATES OF AMERICA. By T. H. Granp 
Pierre, D. D., Pastor of the Reformed Church, Paris. 16mo,cloth. 60 cts. 


HISTORY OF CHURCH MUSIC IN AMERICA, Peculiarities; its legit- 
imate use and its abuse; with notices of Composers, Teachers, Schools, 
Choirs, Societies, Conventions, Books, etc. By N. ἢ. GouLp. 12mo, cloth. 
75 cents. 

THE CAPTIVE IN PATAGONIA; or, Life among the Giants. A Per- 
sonal Narrative. By B. FRANKLIN BouRNE. With Illustrations. 12mo, 
eloth. 85 cents. : 


HISTORICAL LECTURES 


ON THE 


LIFE OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, 


BEING THE 


v4 
Hulsean Lectures for the Pear 1859. 


Wire 


NOTES, CRITICAL, HISTORICAL, AND EXPLANATORY. 


ΒῪ 


6. J. ELLICOTT, B.D., 


PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY, KING’S COLLEGE, LONDON; LATE FELLOW OF 51, JOHN’S 
COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE; AUTHOR OF CRITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL 
COMMENTARIES ON ST. PAUL’S EPISTLES. 


ΒΌΡΜΡΟΝ: 
δ RUUD Ber Θ᾽ Rr! we 


59 WASHINGTON STREET. 
‘NEW YORK: SHELDON AND COMPANY. 
CINCINNATI: GEORGE 8. BLANCHARD. 


1874. 


Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1861, by 
GOULD AND LINCOLN, 
In the Clerk’s Office of the District Court of the District of Massachusetts 


Respectfully Inscribed 


Co 


THE REV. WILLIAM HENRY BATESON, D.D. 


MASTER OF ST. JOHN’S COLLEGE; VICE-CHANCELLOR; 


THE REV. WILLIAM WHEWELL, D.D. 


MASTER OF TRINITY COLLEGE; 


THE REV. WILLIAM HEPWORTH THOMPSON, M.A. 


REGIUS PROFESSOR OF GREEK}; 


TRUSTEES OF MR. HULSE’S BENEFACTIONS 
AT CHRISTMAS, 1858. 


ἊΝ ‘ss | ΠΥ iae Mi ; 
a ie ἢ a Ἵ [ει iia ἐν ΠΝ 


ἋΣ 


« ἢ 


ἜΝ ar hain dm ae ΔΑ ΑΙ ΤΉΝ ἢ 
a ‘apts yal inte ΑΜ ae es | ha es piv si b 
a ati 
rs Fl } Μὴν Ἢ Wee: ν 
aus μας αὐ}... ως bey ease 


oe Peahiaialer 
e δ ide tao πο δι Sire vine 7 ncreeeelniee al 
ied oi idm ednernee ae 
= ΟΣ πο Ces Ay, a εν | 
‘ neon 


Sw τὰ κιουγιρινν ya: ἀνά, 48 


tg “peu. νὰ} με 1 ἀν i 


ΠΕ og coal 


Bete Die, salto oldado yt aed woke ui 


νὰ wi κι ovat vena”, aii 
: ; ib iin ΤῊ moon .reagl Saupe iam ' 
a a λῆς wilitay mA 5 poruapen. 
bird Dire τοὺ Ἢ ORI " iy ale 


es ἐφ. ΤΙ aie 
τ la 


δὶ ΣΎΝ 


ἣν ν᾿ ‘fe ὌΝ ΜΝ bi 
Joa ee) sain} gael ~ 


PREFACE. 


Tue following work consists of eight Lectures, of which 
the first six were preached before the University of Cam- 
bridge in the year 1859. The two remaining Lectures are 
added as giving a necessary completeness to the subject, and 
as in substantial accordance with the will of the munificent 
Founder. 

It is scarcely necessary to make any preliminary remarks 
upon the text of the Lectures, as nearly all that seems re- 
quired in the way of introduction to the subject will be found 
in the opening Lecture. It may, however, be desirable to 
remind the reader that he has before him no attempt at a 
complete Life of our Lord, but only Lectures upon it. These 
it has been my object to make as complete as I have been 
able in everything that relates to the connection of the events, 
or that in any way illustrates their probable order and succes- 
sion. The separate incidents, however, have not in every 
case been dwelt upon at equal length; some being related by 
a single Evangelist, and requiring no explanatory comments, 
while others, from being related by two or more, and some- 
times appearing to involve discordant statements, have called 
for somewhat lengthened considerations. Those portions in 


which, for every reason, it has seemed desirable that some 


x PREFACE. 


regular continuity of narrative should be carefully preserved, 
viz., the Last Passover, and the Forty Days, were not 
required to be delivered from the pulpit, and have thus ap- 
proached more nearly to regular history. I have, however, 
in both been most careful to preserve the same tone and char- 
acter which marked the rest, and I have been thankful that 
the circumstances under which the others were written and 
delivered have prescribed for me in these last two Lectures, 
almost as a matter of course, that gravity and solemnity of 
tone which is so especially called for in the recital of events 
so blessed and so holy, yet withal so awful and so stupendous. 
To adopt the usual tone of mere historical writing when such 
subjects are before us, seems to me little short of profanity ; 
and I have been taught, by the repulsiveness of some nar- 
ratives of the closing scenes of our Lord’s ministry, written 
in the conventional style of ordinary history, to be more than 
usually thankful that the nature of my present undertaking 
has at any rate prevented me from sharing in an error so great 
and so grievous. 

A few remarks must be made on the notes. In these it has 
been my effort to combine two things which are not always 
found in union—a popular mode of treating the question 
under consideration, and accuracy both in outline and detail. 
How far I may have succeeded, it is for others to judge. All 
I will venture to ask the reader kindly to bear in mind is this: 
that much time and very great care and thought have been 
expended on these notes (more, perhaps, than might have been 
needful if they had been longer or their language more tech- 
nical), and that thus they are not always to be judged of by 
their brevity or the familiar list of authorities to which they 


refer. In my references I have aimed solely at being useful, 


PREFACE. xi 


not to’ the special, but to the general student, and thus have 
but rarely permitted myself to direct attention to any works 
or treatises that are not perfectly well known and accessible. 
I have not, by any means, attempted to exclude Greek from 
my notes, as this seems to me, in such works as the present, 
to savor somewhat of an affectation of simplicity; but I have 
still, in very many cases, either translated or quoted from the 
translations of others the longer passages from the great Greek 
commentators which form so considerable and so valuable a 
portion of these notes. A similar course has been pursued 
in reference to German expositors, though longer quotations 
from them are only occasional. These latter writers are, as 
it will be observed, often referred to; but care has been taken 
only to give prominence to the better class of them, and fur- 
ther to refer, where translations exist, to the work in its Eng- 
lish rather than its German form. In a word, my humble 
aim throughout these notes has been to engage the interest of 
the general reader, and I pray God that herein I may have 
succeeded ; for much that is here discussed has of late years 
often been put forward in popular forms that neither are, nor 
perhaps were intended to be, conformable to the teaching of 
the Church. Of my own views it is perhaps not necessary 
for me to speak. This only will I say, that, though I neither 
feel, nor affect to feel, the slightest sympathy with the so-called 
popular theology of the present day, I still trust that, in the 
many places in which it has been almost necessarily called 
forth in the present pages, I have used no expression towards 
sceptical writings stronger than may have been positively 
required by allegiance to catholic truth. ‘Towards the honest 
and serious thinker who may feel doubts or difficulties in some 
of the questions connected with our Lord’s life, all tenderness 


ΧΙ PREFACE. 


may justly be shown; but to those who enter upon tlfis holy 
ground with the sinister intentions of the destructive critic, or 
of the so-called unprejudiced historian, it is not necessary 
or desirable to suppress all indication of our repulsion. 

Marginal references have been added, as indicating the 
authority for the expressions and statements of the text. 
When these are not present, and guarded conjecture has been 
resorted to, particular care has been taken to make this most 
distinctly apparent. 

It is not necessary to detain the reader with further com- 
ments; and it only remains for me, with all lowliness and 
reverence, to lay before Almighty God this attempt, this poor 
and feeble attempt, to set forth the outward connection of 
those incidents that inspired pens have been moved to record 
of the life of His Eternal Son. May He pardon its many 
failings and defects; may He look with pity on efforts, many 
of which have been made while the shadow of His hand has 
rested darkly over him who strove to make them; and may 
He bless this partial first-fruits of a mercifully spared life, by 
permitting it to minister, in its humble measure and degree, to 
His honor and glory, and to the truth as it is in His blessed 


Son. 
TPIAS, MONAS, ἘΛΕΗΣΟΝ. 


CAMBRIDGE, OCTOBER, 1860. 


᾿ς 


CONTENTS. 


LECTURE LI. 


Introductory Considerations on the Characteristics 


of the Four Gospels. 


Statement of the subject, 19.— Reasons for choosing it, 19.— Method adopted 


in the Lectures, 24 sq.— Caution in applying the principles laid down, 25. — 


Sources of the history, 26.— Details mainly in reference to internal charac- 


teristics, 28 sq. — Necessity of recognizing the individualities of the four Gos- 


pels, 31. — Errors of earlier harmonists, 32 sq.—Individuality of St. Mat- 


thew’s Gospel, 35. — St. Matthew’s portraiture of our Lord, 36. — Individuality 
of St. Mark’s Gospel, 37. —St. Mark’s portraiture of our Lord, 39. — Individ- 


uality of St. Luke’s Gospel, 41. — St. Luke’s portraiture of our Lord, 42.— 


Individuality of St. John’s Gospel, 44 sq.—St. John’s portraiture of our 


Lord, 45. — Conclusion, 47. 


LECTURE II. 


Che Birth and Anfanep of σαν Lord. 


General aspects of the present undertaking, 49.— Arrangement of the subject, 


51.— The Miraculous Conception of our Lord; its mystery and sublimity, 52 


sq.— The narrative of the conception considered generally, 54. —The narra- 


τ 


14 CONTENTS. 


tive of the conception considered in its details, 56 sq. —Self-evident truth of 
the narrative, 58.—Journey of the Virgin to Elizabeth, 60 sq.— Internal 
truthfulness of the two inspired Canticles, 63.— Return of the Virgin and 
the revelation to Joseph, 64.—Journey to Bethlehem, and taxing under 
Quirinus, 66 sq. —The Nativity and its attendant circumstances, 69 sq. — The 
Presentation in the temple, 73 sq. —The visit and adoration of the Magi, 77. 
— The guiding star, 78 sq.— The extreme naturalness of the sacred narrative, 
80.— Flight into Egypt and murder of the Innocents, 83.—The silence of 


Josephus, 88. — The return to Judza, 85 sq. — Conclusion, 87. 


LECTURE III. 


Che τιν Audean Ministry. 


The early years of our Lord’s life, 89.— Reserve of the Evangelists, 89. —The 
brief notice of our Lord’s childhood, 90.— Equally brief notice of our Lord’s 
youth, 91.— Visit to the temple when twelve years old, 95.— Search for and 
discovery of the Holy Child, 94 sq. — Frivolous nature of the objections urged 
against the narrative, 98.— Silence of the Evangelists on the next eighteen 
years of our Lord’s life, 99 sg. — The mental and spiritual development of our 
Lord, 102.— The ministry of the Baptist and its probable effects, 104 sq.— 
Journey of our Lord to the Baptism of John, 106 sq.— The nature of St. 
John’s recognition of our Lord, 108. —The Temptation of,our Lord; its true 
nature and circumstances, 110.—The temptation no vision or trance, 111.— 
The temptation an assault from without, 112.— The temptation addressed to 
the three parts of our nature, 118.—The ministering angels, and the return to 
Galilee, 115.—The testimony of the Baptist, 115.— The journey to and mir- 
acle at Cana in Galilee, 117.— Remarks on the miracle, 117 sq. — Brief stay 
at Capernaum, and journey to Jerusalem, 121.— The expulsion of the traders 
from the temple, 122.— Impression made by this and other acts, 124. — The 
discourse of our Lord with Nicodemus, 124. — Our Lord leaves Jerusalem and 


retires to the northeast parts of Judea, 125.—The final testimony of the 


CONTENTS. 15 


Baptist, 126 sq.— Our Lord’s journey through Samaria, 129 sq. —The further 
journey of our Lord to Galilee, 131.— Our Lord’s return to Jerusalem at the 
feast of Purim, 132 sq. — Main objection to this opinion, 135 sq. — The miracle 
at the pool of Bethesda, 136. — Distinctive character of this epoch, 188. —The 
termination of the early Judzxan ministry, 189.— Concluding remarks and 


exhortation, 141. 


LECTURE IV. 


Ghe Ministry in Gastern Galilee. 


Resumption of the subject, 148. — Brief recapitulation of the events of the Ju- 
dean ministry, 148 sq.—Two preliminary observations, 146.—The exact 
period of time embraced in the present Lecture, 146. —The variations of order 
in the three synoptical Gospels, 147.—'The order of St. Mark and St. Luke 
followed in this Lecture, 149 sq. — Appearance of our Lord in the synagogue 
at Nazareth, 152.— Departure to and abode at Capernaum, 154.— Special 
call of the four disciples, 155.— Healing of a demoniac in the synagogue at 
Capernaum, 156.— Continued performance of miracles on the same day, 157. 
— The nature of our Lord’s ministerial labors as indicated by this one day, 
159. — Probable duration of this circuit, 161.—The return to Capernaum, and 
healing of the faithful paralytic, 162. —The call of St. Matthew, and the feast 
at his house, 164. — Further charges; the plucking of the ears of corn, 165. — 
The healing of a man with a withered hand on a Sabbath, 167. —Choice of 
the twelve Apostles, and Sermon on the Mount, 169.— Probable form of the 
Sermon on the Mount, 170.—The healing of the centurion’s servant, and 
raising of the widow’s son, 171 sq. — The Baptist’s message of inquiry, 173. — 
Short circuit; fresh charges of the Pharisees, 174. ~~ The teaching by parables 

176.—The passage across and storm on the lake, 177.—The Gergesene de- 
moniacs, 178. — The raising of Jairus’ daughter, 179. —The second visit to the 
synagogue at Nazareth, 181.— The sending forth the twelve Apostles, 182 sq. 
-~The feeding of the five thousand, 184. — Concluding remarks, 185-6. 


10 CONTENTS. 


LECTURE V. 


The Ministry in Northern Galilee. 


General features of this part of our Lord’s history, 187.— Special contrasts and 
characteristics, 185. — Chronological limits of the present portion, 188. — Pro- 
gressive nature of our Lord’s ministry, 189. — Contrasts between this and pre- 
ceding portions of the narrative, 190.— Teaching and preaching, rather than 
miracles, characteristic of this period, 191.—Such a difference probable from 
the nature of the case, 198.— The return across the lake; our Lord walks on 
the water, 193 sq.— Return to Capernaum; our Lord’s discourse in the syna- 
gogue, 196 sq. — Healings in Gennesareth, and return of the Jewish emis- 
saries, 199 86. --- Journey to Tyre and Sidon, and the miracle performed there, 
201.— Return toward Decapolis and the eastern shore of the lake, 203. — 
Journey to Decapolis; healing of a deaf and dumb man, 204. — The feeding of 
the four thousand, 205. — Not identical with the feeding of the five thousand, 
206. —Return to the western side of the lake, 207.— Journey northward to 
Cxsarea Philippi, 208. —The locality and significance of the Transfiguration, 
210. —The healing of a demoniac boy, 211.— Return to and probable tempo- 


rary seclusion at Capernaum, 212 sq. — Conclusion and recapitulation, 215 sq. 


LECTURE VI. 


The Journepings towurd Jerusalem. 


General character of the present portion of the inspired narrative, 218. — Limits 
of the present section, 219.—Harmonistic and chronological difficulties, 219 
sq. — Precise nature of these difficulties, 221. Comparison of this portion of 
St. Luke’s Gospel with that of St. John, 223 sq. — Results of the above consid- 
erations, 225.—Brief stay at Capernaum; worldly requests of our Lord’s 


brethren, 226 sq. — Journey to Jerusalem through Samaria, 228.— Our Lord’s 


CONTENTS. she 


arrival and preaching at Jerusalem, 230.—The woman taken in adultery; 
probable place of the incident in the Gospel history, 232.— Further teaching 
and preaching at Jerusalem, 233 sq. — Departure from Jerusalem, and mission 
of the Seventy, 235. — Further incidents in Judza recorded by St. Luke, 236. 
—Our Lord’s visit to Jerusalem at the Feast of Dedication, 287 sq.—The 
Lord’s message to Herod, and preparation to leave Perza, 240.— Probable 
events during the last two days in Perxa, 242 sq.— Apparently confirmatory 
notice in St. John, 244.— Effect produced by the raising of Lazarus, 245.— 
Incidents in the last journey to Judza, 247 Βα. --- Onward progress toward 


Jerusalem, 250.— Arrival at Jericho, 251. — Conclusion, 253. 


LECTURE VII. 


Ghe Hust Pussobver. 


Introductory comments, 254.— Characteristics of the preceding portion of the 
narrative, 255.— Characteristics of the present portion, 256.— The journey 
to and supper at Bethany, 257.—The triumphal entry into Jerusalem, 259 
sq. — Reflections on the credibility of the narrative, 263.— Our Lord’s entry 
into Jerusalem, 265.— The cursing of the barren fig-tree (Monday), 266 sq. — 
The cleansing of the temple, and works of mercy performed there, 268. --- 
Answers to the deputation from the Sanhedrin (Tuesday), 270 sq.—Con- 
tinued efforts on the part of the deputation, 273.—The question about the 
duty of paying tribute to Cesar, 274 sq.— Exposure and frustration of the 
stratagem, 277.— The question of the Sadducees touching the resurrection, 
278. —The question of the lawyer about the greatest commandment, 280. — 
The question relative to the woman taken in adultery, 281.— Our Lord’s 
question respecting the Son of David, 283.— The offering of the poor widow, 
285. --- The request of the Greek proselytes, 286 sq.—The departure from the 
temple, and the last prophecies, 288.— Consultation of the Sanhedrin, and 
treachery of Judas (Wednesday), 290.— The celebration of the Last Supper 
(Thursday), 291 sq.—The agony in Gethsemane (Thursday night), 296 sq.— 


The betrayal of our Lord, 299. —The preliminary examination before Annas, 


Q* 


18 CONTENTS. 


300. — The examination before the Sanhedrin, 802 sq. — The brutal mockery of 
the attendants, 805.—The fate of Judas Iscariot, 306.— Our Lord’s first ap- 
pearance before Pilate, 307 sq.— The dismissal of our Lord to Herod, 310. — 
Second appearance before Pilate; his efforts to set our Lord free, 311 sq.— 
Scourging of our Lord; renewed efforts of Pilate, 314 sq.—The CRUCcIFIXx- 
10N, 817. — Occurrences from the third to the sixth hour, 319.— The darkness 
from the sixth to the ninth hour, 320 sq.—The portents that followed our 
Lord’s death, 828. --- The removal from the cross, and burial of the Lord’s 
body, 825 sq. — Conclusion, 828. 


LECTURE VIII. 


Che Forty Dupes. 


Introductory comments, 331. — Doctrinal questions involved in this portion of 
the history, 331 sq. — Characteristics of the present portion of the narrative; 
number of the accounts, 334. — Their peculiarities and differences, 335 sq. —~ 
Resumption of the narrative, 338. — Visit of the women to the sepulchre, 339 
sq. — The appearance of the angels to the women at the sepulchre, 343. — The 
two Apostles at the tomb, 344.— The Lord’s appearance to Mary Magdalene, 
846 sq.— Probable effect produced on the Apostles by Mary’s tidings, 349. — 
The Lord’s appearance to the other ministering women, 350 sq. — The appear- 
ance of our Lord to the two disciples journeying to Emmaus, 862 sq. — Ina- 
bility of the disciples to recognize our Lord, 355.— Appearance to the ten 
Apostles, 857 sq. — Disbelief of Thomas; our Lord’s appearance to the eleven 
Apostles, 361.— Appearance by the lake of Tiberias, 362 sq. — Reverential 
awe of the Apostles, 865.— Appearance to the brethren in Galilee, 807. - The 


Lord’s Ascension, 869 sq. — Conclusion, 371 sq. 


Peli Peer RPST: 


LECTURE I. 


INTRODUCTORY CONSIDERATIONS ON THE CHARACTER- 
ISTICS OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 


THESE ARE WRITTEN, THAT YE MIGHT BELIEVE THAT JESUS IS THE CHRIST, 
THE SON OF GOD; AND THAT BELIEVING YE MIGHT HAVE LIFE THROUGH 
HIS NAME. — κέ. John, xx. 31. 


THESE words, brethren, which, in the context from which 
they are taken, allude more particularly to 
the miracles of Christ, but which I venture _, Sementor sur 
here to extend in application to the whole 
evangelical history, will in some degree prepare you for 
the subject that I purpose laying before you in this series 
of Lectures. After serious meditation on the various sub- 
jects which the will of the munificent founder of these 
Lectures leaves open to the preacher, it has appeared to 
me that none would be likely to prove more useful and 
more edifying than the history and connection of the 
events in the earthly life of our Lord and Master, Jesus , 
Christ. 

Two grave reasons have weighed with me in choosing 
this momentous subject; one more exclusively 
relating to the younger portion of my audi- _,Heisons/orchoos 
ence, the other relating to us all. 

The first reason has been suggested by the feeling, which 
I believe is not wholly mistaken, that these 
Lectures are too often liable, from the nature 
of the subjects to which they are restricted, to prove un~ 


First reason. 


» 


20 INTRODUCTORY CONSIDERATIONS ON THE Lect. I. 


attractive to the younger portion of those among us. It 
is but seldom that the young feel much interested in the 
debated questions of Christian evidence. Nay, it is natural 
that they should not. With the freshness and warmth of 
springing life, with the generous impulses of yet unchilled 
hearts, they are ready for the most part to believe rather 
than to doubt, to accept rather than to question. The calm 
and impartial investigation, the poised judgment, the sus- 
pended assent, which must all characterize the sober dis- 
putant on Christian evidences, and which we of a maturer 
age may admire and appreciate, are, I truly believe, often 
so repulsive to our younger brethren, that after having sat 
out a sermon or two, they company with us no more. This 
applies with still greater force, as has been thoughtfully 
suggested to me, to the new comers in the October term, 
whose first entrance into the Church of this our mother 
University is commonly during the second part of the 
course of the Hulsean Lecturer. They have thus all the 
disadvantage of coming among us in the middle of a 
course; and when to that is added a consciousness of de- 
fective sympathy with the theme of the preacher, they are 
tempted, I fear, thus early to withdraw from what they 
deem unedifying, and so to lay the foundation of the evil 
habit of neglecting attendance at this Church, and of treat- 
ing lightly the great Christian duty of assembling ourseives 
together in the house of God. 

It has thus seemed desirable to choose a subject which, 
if properly treated, ought to interest and to edify the very 
youngest hearer among us, and which may admit of such 
natural divisions as may cause the later hearers to feel less 
sensibly the disadvantage of not having attended the ear- 
lier portion of the course. 

My second reason, however, for the selection of this pe- 
culiar subject is one that applies to us all, 
and is still more grave and momentous. It is 
based on the deep conviction, that to the great questions 
connected with the life of our Redeemer, Jesus Christ, the 


Second reason. 


Lect. I. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 21 


Son of Adam, the Son of God, all the controversies of these 
latter days are tending noticeably to con- 
verge. Here it is that even the more abstract 
questions, that try the faith of our own times, — questions 
as abstract as the degree of inspiration of the Written 
Word, or the nature of the efficacies of the Atonement? 
which that Word declares to us, — must seek for their ulti- 
mate adjustment. Here is the battle-ground of the pres- 
ent, here, perchance, the mystic Armageddon of coming 
strife. Already forms of heresy more subtle than ever Ebi- 
onite propounded or Marcionite devised,— forms of heresy 
that have clad themselves in the trappings of modern his- 


Luke iii. 38. 


1 In every complete discussion on the Inspiration of the Scriptures, the nature 
of the more special references of our Lord to the Old Testament must be fully 
and fairly considered. To take an extreme case: when our Lord refers, dis- 
tinctly and explicitly (Matt. xii. 39, 40), to ‘‘the sign of the prophet Jonas,” have 
we any escape from one of two alternatives, either, (@) that, in spite of all that 
has been urged to the cortrary, and all the scarcely disguised contempt with 
which the history of Jonah has been treated by modern criticism (comp. Hitzig, 
Kileinen Propheten, p. 361 sq. ), the narrative is notwithstanding true and typical, 
and referred to by our Lord as such; or, (Ὁ) that it is fabulous, and that our 
Lord wittingly made use of a fabulous narrative to illustrate His Resurrection? 
Modern speculation does not hesitate to accept (b), and to urge that it was not a 
part of our Lord’s mission to correct all the wrong opinions, more or less con- 
nected with religion, which might be prevalent in the minds of those with 
whom He was conversing (comp. Norton, Genuineness of Gospel, Vol. ii. p. 477). 
If we rest contented with such unhappy statements, we must be prepared to 
remodel not only our views of our Lord’s teaching, but of some of the highest 
attributes of His most holy life: consider and contrast Ullmann, Unsiindlichkeit 
Jesu, § 19 (Transl. p. 8, 75, Clark). The assertion that ‘the sign of Jonah” was 
not referred by our Lord to His resurrection, but to His whole earthly life, seems 
distinctly untenable (see esp. Meyer on Matt. xii. 40); but were it otherwise, it 
could scarcely affect the above considerations. 

To contemplate a rejection of these words from the inspired narrative in the 
face of the most unquestioned external evidence (Maurice, Kings and Prophets, 
p. 857) cannot be characterized as otherwise than as in the highest degree arbi- 
trary and uncritical. 

2 Everything which tends to derogate from the Divinity of our Lord tends, as 
Priestly long ago clearly perceived (History of Corruptions, Vol.i.p. 158), to do ° 
away with the idea of an atonement, in the proper sense of the word, for the 
sins of other men. (Comp. Magee, Atonement, Dissert. 3.) So, conversely, all 
limitations of the atonement, all tendencies to represent our Lord’s sacrifice as 
merely an act of moral greatness (comp. Jowett, Romans, Vol. ii. Ὁ. 481), will be 
found inevitably to lead to indirect denials of the Catholic doctrine of the union 
of the two natures in our Lord, and to implied limitations of His Divinity. 
(Compare, but with some reserve, Macdonell, Lectures on the Atonement, Donel- 
lan Lectures, p. 61 sq.) 


22 INTRODUCTORY CONSIDERATIONS ON THE  Lecrt.I. 


torical philosophy,’ and have learned to accommodate them- 
selves to the more distinctly earthly aspects of modern 
specuiation, have appeared in other Christian lands, and 
are now silently producing their influence on thousands 
and tens of thousands who bear on their foreheads the bap- 
tismal cross of Christ. Already, even in our own more 
favored country, humanitarian views with regard to the 
Person of our Redeemer are thrusting themselves forward 
with a startling and repulsive activity, — intruding them- 
selves into our popular literature as well as into our popu- 
lar theology,’ yea, and winning assent by their seductive 
appeal to those purely human motions and feelings within 
us, which, while we are in the flesh, we can harldly deem 
separable from the nature of even sinless man. Already 
too a so-called love of truth, a bleak, barren, loveless love 
of truth, which the wise Pascal* long since denounced,— a 
love of truth that like Agag claims to walk delicately, and 
to be respected and to be spared, —is gathering around it- 
self its Epicurean audiences; already is it making its boast 
of fabled civilizations that rest on other bases than on 
Christ and His Church,‘ daily and hourly laboring with 


1 For a clear statement of the two problems connected with the Gospel history 
{the criticism of the evangelical writings, and the criticism of the evangelical 
history), and the regular development of modern speculation, see the Introduc- 
tion to the useful work of Ebrard, Wissenschaftliche Kritik der evangelischen 
Geschichte, § 2—7, p. 3 sq. (ed. 2). 

2 See Preface to Commentary on the Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon, 
he oA 
3 The following remark of this thoughtful writer deserves consideration: “On 
se fait une idole de la verité méme: car la verité hors de Ja charité n’est pas 
Dieu; elle est son image, et une idole qu’il ne faut point aimer, ni adorer; et 
encore moins faut-il aimer et adorer son contraire, qui est le mensonge.” Pen- 
sées, 11. 17. 74, p. 297 (Didot, 1846). 

4It does not seem unjust to say that the views advocated in the most recent 
history of civilization that has appeared in this country (Buckle, History of Civ- 
ilization, Lond. 1858) cannot be regarded as otherwise than plainly hostile to 
Christianity. There is a special presupposition in viewing the history of Christ 
in its relation to the world, which such writers as Mr. Buckle unhappily either 
scorn or reject,— a presupposition which a historian of a far higher strain has 
well defined as the root of all our modern civilization, and as that from which 
civilization can never separate itself, without assuming an entirely changed 
form; ‘‘it is the presupposition that Jesus is the Son of God, ina sense which 
cannot be predicated of any human being,—the perfect image of the supreme 


Lect.I. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 23 


that restless energy that belongs to “the walkers in dry 
places,” to make us regard as imaginary or illusory those 
holy prepossessions in reference to the Evangelical history, 
that ought, and were designed by God himself, to exercise 
their unquestioned influence and sovereignty over our 
whole inner life.’ 

It is this feeling that has more especially led me to fix 
upon the Life of our Lord and Master as the subject of 
these Lectures. It is the deep feeling, that every effort, 
however humble and homely, to set forth the groupings, 
the harmonies, and the significances of that holy History, 
is a contribution to the spiritual necessities of our own 
times, that has now moved me to enter upon this lofty 
theme. Here it is, and here only is it, that our highest 
ideal conceptions of perfection find only still higher prac- 
tical realizations. Here it is that, while we humbly strive 
to trace the lineaments of the outward, we cannot fail, if 
we be true to God and to our own souls, to feel the work- 
ings of the inward,’ and while the eyes dwell lovingly on 


personal God in the form of that humanity that was estranged from Him; the 
presupposition that in Him appeared the source of the divine life itself in 
humanity, and that by Him the idea of humanity was realized.” Neander, 
Leben Jesu Chr. p. 5 (Transl. § 2, p.5, Bohn). Contrast with this the unhappy 
and self-contradictory comments of Hase, Leben Jesu, § 14, p. 16. 

1 It has been well said by Ebrard, ‘‘ We do not enter on the Evangelical His- 
tory, with spy-glass in hand, to seek our own credit by essaying to disclose ever 
fresh instances of what is contradictory, foolish, or ridiculous, but with the 
faithful, clear, and open eye of him who joyfully recognizes the good, the beau- 
tiful, and the noble, wheresoever he finds it, and on that account finds it with 
joy, and never lays aside his favorable prepossession till he is persuaded of the 
contrary. We give ourselves up to the plastic influence of the Gospels, live in 
them, and at the same time secure to ourselves, while we thus act in the spirit of 
making all our own, a deeper insight into the unity, beauty, and depth of the 
Evangelical History.” — Kritik der Evang. Geschichte, § 8, p. 38. 

2 It is satisfactory to find in most of the higher class of German writers on the 
Life of our Lord a distinct recognition of this vital principle of the Gospel nar- 
rative: ‘‘ As man’s limited intellect could never, without the aid of God’s revela- 
tion of Himself to the spirit of man, have originated the idea of God, so the 
image of Christ could never have sprung from the consciousness of sinful 
humanity, but must be regarded as the reflection of the actual life of such a 
Christ. It is Christ’s self-revelation, made, through all generations, in the frag- 
ments of His history that remain, and in the workings of His Spirit which 
inspires these fragments, and enables us to recognize in them one complete 


24 INTRODUCTORY CONSIDERATIONS ON THE Lect. L 


the inspired outlines of the history of Jesus, and of Him 
crucified, to feel His image waxing clearer in the soul, His 
eternal sympathies mingling with our infirmities, and en- 
larging into more than mortal measures the whole spiritual 
stature of the inner man 

After this lengthened, but I believe not unnecessary in- 
troduction, let me, with fervent prayer for grace and assist- 
ance from the illuminating Spirit of God, at once address 
myself to my arduous and responsible task. : 

Method: adopted (I.) And first, as to the method which, 
in these Tecures. with the help of God, I intend to pursue. 

My first object in these Lectures is to arrange, to com- 
ment upon, and, as far as possible, to illustrate, the prin- 
cipal events in our Redeemer’s earthly history; to show 
their coherence, their connection,’ and their varied and sug- 
gestive meanings; to place, as far as may be safely attempt- 
ed, the different divine discourses in their apparently true 
positions, estimated chronologically,’ and to indicate how 


whole.’’— Neander, Leben Jesu Chr. Ὁ. 6 (Transl. § 8, Ὁ. 4, Bohn). See further the 
eloquent remarks of Dr. Lange, in the introduction to his valuable work, Das 
Leben Jesu nach den Evangelien, 1. 1. 6, Vol.i. p. 71 sq. (Heidelb. 1844), and com- 
pare the introductory comments of Ewald, Geschichte Christus’, pp. Xi. xii. 

1 The admirable introductory exhortation of Bp. Taylor, prefixed to his Life 
of Christ, deserves particular attention. The prayer with which it concludes is 
one of the most exalted of those rapt devotional outpourings which illustrate 
and adorn that great monument of learning and piety. 

2On the two methods of relating the events of our Lord’s life, whether by 
adhering strictly to chronological sequence, or by grouping together what seems 
historically similar, see Hase, Leben Jesu, § 16, p.17. The latter method is 
always precarious, and in some cases, as, for example, in the Leben Jesu Christi 
of Neander, tends to leave the reader with a very vague idea of the real connec- 
tions of the history. 

3 It may perhaps be safely affirmed, and many parts of the succeeding lectures 
will serve to illustrate the truth of the remark, that the exact chronological 
position of all our Lord’s discourses can never be satisfactorily ascertained. One 
of the most sharp-sighted and trustworthy of modern chronologers of our Lord’s 
life prudently observes: “1 will not deny that the chronology of the discourses 
of our Lord, and especially of all the separate discourses, is very hard to be 
ascertained; nay, the problem, viewed under its most rigorous aspects, owing to 
the nature of the evangelical accounts that have come down to us, —I refer par- 
ticularly to the Gospel of St. Matthew, in which especially so many of these 
portions of discourses occur, —is perhaps never to be solved.” — Wieseler, Chro- 
nologische Synopse, p.287. Compare, too, Stier, Reden Jesu. Vol. i.p.xi (TransL 
Vol. i. p. 7, Clark). 


Lect.I. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 25 


they both give to and receive illustration from the out- 
ward events with which they stand in more immediate 
connection. 

But all this must be, and the very nature of the subject 
prescribes that it should be, subordinated to the desire to 
set forth, in as much fulness and completeness as my limi* 
may permit, not only the order and significance of the cot. 
ponent features, but the transcendent picture of our Re 
deemer’s life, viewed as one divine whole! Without thi 
ulterior object all such labor is worse than in vain. With- 
out this higher aim, the divine harmonies of our Master’s 
life become lost in mere annalistic detail; the spiritual 
epochs of His ministry forgotten in the dull, earthly study 
of the varied problematical arrangements of contested his- 
tory. These last points the nature of my present office may 
compel me not to leave wholly untouched; nay, I trust that 
those who are acquainted with the nature of such investiga- 
tions will hereafter perceive that I have not shrunk from 
entering into this very difficult and debatable province of 
our subject, and that opinions are not put forth without some 
knowledge of what has been urged against them. Still, the 
details will not appear in the text of the Lectures, or ap- 
pear only in affirmative statements that are subordinated to 
the general current and spirit of the narrative. 

O, let us not forget, in all our investigations, that the 
history of the life of Christ is a history of 
redemption, — that all the records which the _ ρα ΡΝ 
Eternal Spirit of truth has vouchsafed to us 
bear this indelible impress, and are only properly to be seen 


1 “Tt is the problem of faith,’ says Dr. Lange, ‘‘to introduce into the church’s 
contemplation of the life of Jesus, viewed as a whole, more and more of the 
various features of the gospel narrative, regarded in their consistent relations 
with one another. On the contrary, itis the problem of theological science to 
endeavor to exhibit more and more, by successive approximations, the com- 
pleted unity of the life of Jesus from the materials ready to its hand.’ — Leben 
Jesu, i. 7.2, Vol. i. p. 283. Some thoughtful remarks on the contrast between 
the ideal and the outward manifestation of the same (Gegensatz zwischen der 
Idee und der Erscheinung) in the lives of men, but the perfect harmony of this 
ideal and phenomenal in Christ, will be found in Neander, Leben Jesu Chr. p. 9. 


3 


20 INTRODUCTORY CONSIDERATIONS ON THE Lect. L 


and understood from this point of contemplation! It is 
the history of the Redeemer of our race that the Gospels 
present to us; the history, not of Jesus of Nazareth, but of 
the Saviour of the world; the record, not of merely ideal- 
ized perfections,? but of redemptive workings, — “My 
Father worketh hitherto, and I work;” and he 
who would presume to trace out that blessed 
history, without being influenced by this remembrance in 
all his thoughts and words, must be prepared to find him- 
self adding one more unhonored name to the melancholy 
list of those who have presumed to treat of these myste- 
ries, with the eclectic and critical spirit of the so-called 
biographer, — the biographer’ (O, strangely inappropriate 
and unbecoming word) of Him in whom 
dwelt the whole fulness of the Godhead, 
fo aes Ag (11.) In the next place a few words must 

on this occasion necessarily be said both on 
the sources of our history, and our estimate of they 
divinely ordered differences and characteristics. 


John v. 17. 


Col. ti. 9. 


1 Some very valuable remarks on the true points of view from which the 
Evangelical History ought to be regarded by the Christian student, will be foung 
in the eloquent introduction of Lange to his Leben Jesu: see esp. Book i. 4. αὶ 
Vol. i. p. 141 sq. 

2 Compare Lange, Leben Jesu, i. 1. 5, 6, Vol. i. p. 41 sq. It has been wel 
remarked by Neander, in answer to Strauss, that the picture of the Life of Christ 
does not exhibit the spirit of the age in which it appeared; nay, that “‘the image 
of human perfection thus concretely presented stands in manifold contradiction 
to the tendencies of humanity in that period; no one of them, no combination 
of them, dead as they were, could account for it.” — Leben Jesu, p.6, note (Transl. 
p.4, Bohn). The true conception of the mingled divine and human aspects of 
our Lord’s life has been nowhere better hinted at than by Augustine, —‘“‘ Ita 
inter Deum et homines mediator apparuit, ut in unitate persone copulans utram- 
que naturam, et solita sublimaret insolitis et insolita solitis temperaret.’’ — Lpist. 
cxxxvii. 8. 9, Vol. ii. p. 519 (ed. Migné). 

3 The essential character of biography is stated clearly and fairly enough by 
Hase (Leben Jesu, § 12, p. 15), but the proposed application of it to the life of our 
Lord can scarcely be defined as otherwise than as in a high degree startling and 
repulsive. This cold, clear, but unsound writer seems to imagine that some 
height can be reached from which the modern historical critic can recognize the 
individualizing characteristics of the life of Christ as the Evangelists desired to 
portray them, and may sketch them out in their true (?) relations to the time 
and age in which they were manifested. Compare the somewhat similar and 
equally objectionable remarks of Von Ammon, Geschichte des Leben Jesu, Vol. 

> Ὁ. vii. (Preface). 


τ. 1. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. ZT 


Our sources are the four Gospels, four inspired narratives, 
so mysteriously overruled in their interdependence, that, 
regarded from the point of view in which the history of 
our Lord alone ought to be regarded, —viz., as a history of 
redemption, —they are all, and more than all, that our most 
elevated conceptions of our own spiritual needs could have 
sought for or devised. Such words, perchance, may sound 
strange in an age that has busied itself in noting down 
the seeming deficiencies of the Gospels, rather than recog- 
nizing their divine fulness; that looks out for diversities, 
rather than accordances,! and that never seems to regard 
its historical criticism with more complacency than when 
it presents to us the four inspired witnesses as involved 
in the discrepancies of a separate story.?, Such words, I 
say, may sound strange, but they are the words of sober- 
ness and truth; and I will be bold to say that no patient 
and loving spirit will ever rise from a lengthened investiga- 
tion of the four evangelical records without having arrived 
at this honest Conviction, — that though here there may 
seem difficulty because faith is to be tried,’ there a seeming 
discrepancy because we know not all, yet that the histories 
themselves, no less in their arrangements and mutual rela- 
tions than in the nature of their contents, exhibit vividly 


1A popular but sound article (by Prof. C. E. Stowe) on the nature of the 
modern assaults upon the four Gospels will be found in the Bibliotheca Sacra 
for 1851, pp. 503—529. The details are well sketched out by Ebrard, Aritik der 
Ev. Geschichte, § 3—7, Ὁ. 5 sq. 

2 The early Church was fully aware of the discrepancies, not merely in detail, 
but even in general plan and outline, that were deemed to exist between the 
Gospels, but she well knew how they were to be estimated and regarded: οὐδὲ 
γὰρ τοὺς εὐαγγελιστὰς φαίημεν ἂν ὑπεναντία ποιεῖν ἀλλήλοις, ὅτι οἱ μὲν τῷ 
σαρκικῷ τοῦ Χριστοῦ πλέον ἐνησχολήδϑησαν, οἱ δὲ τῇ ϑεολογίᾳ προσέβησαν" 
καὶ οἱ μὲν ἐκ τῶν Kay ἡμᾶς, of δὲ ἐκ τοῦ ὑπὲρ ἡμᾶς ἐποιήσαντο τὴν ἀρχήν" 
οὕτω τὸ κήρυγμα διελόμενοι πρὸς τὸ χρήσιμον οἶμαι τοῖς δεχομένοις, καὶ οὕτω 
παρὰ τοῦ ἐν αὐτοῖς τυπούμενοι Πνεύματος.-- Greg. Naz. Orat. xx. Vol. i. p. 365 
(Paris, 1609.) 

3 “Tpsa enim simplici et certa fide in illo permanere debemus, ut ipse aperiat 
fidelibus quod in se absconditum est: quia sicut idem dicit apostolus, Jn illo suné- 
omnes thesauri sapientie et scientie adsconditi. Quos non propterea abscondit, 
ut neget, sed ut absconditis excitet desiderium.’’— Augustine, Serm. li. 4, Vol. v. 
p. 336 (ed. Migné). 


28 INTRODUCTORY CONSIDERATIONS ON THE 1σοτ. 1. 


the pervading influence of that Spirit which it was declared 
should guide, aye, and infallibly has guided, 
their writers into all truth.’ But let us carry 
out these observations somewhat in detail. 
Omitting, on the present occasion, all investigations into 
the more distinctly external characteristics 
oa” of the Gospels, whether in regard of the 
ternal characters general aspect of these inspired documents, 
or the particular styles in which they are com- 
posed, let us turn our attention to the more interesting sub- 
ject of their internal peculiarities and distinctions. And 
yet we may pause for a moment even on the outward; for 
verily the outward is such as can never be overlooked; the 
outward differences and distinctions are indeed such as 
may well claim the critical reader’s most meditative consid- 
eration. We may note, for example, the pervading tinge 
of Hebrew thought and diction? that marks, what we may 
perhaps correctly term, the narrative® of St. Matthew; 


John xvi. 18, 


1 The language of Augustine on the subject of the plenary inspiration of the 
Gospels is clear and decided: “ Quidquid ille [Christus} de suis factis et dictis nos 
legere voluit, hoc scribendum illis tanquam suis manibus imperavit. Hoc uni- 
tatis consortium et in diversis officiis concordium membrorum sub uno capite 
ministerium quisquis intellexerit, non aliter accipiet, quod narrantibus discipulis 
Christi, in Evangelio legerit, quam si ipsam manum Domini, quam in propric 
corpore gestabat, scribentem conspexerit.”—De Consensu Evang. i. 35, Vol. iii. p 
1070 (ed. Migné); comp. in Joann. Tract. xxx. 1, Vol. iii. p. 1682. 

2 Nearly all modern critics agree in recognizing, not merely in isolated words 
and phrases, but in the general tone and diction of the first Gospel, the Hebrais: 
tic element. The ‘‘ physiognomy of this first of our Gospels,” to use the lan 
guage of Da Costa, “is eminently Oriental:” the language, though mainly 
simple and artless, not unfrequently rises to the rhythmical, and even poetical, 
and is marked by a more frequently recurring parallelism of words or clauses 
(comp. Lowth, Prelim. Dissert. to Isaiah, p. viii. Lond. 1837) than is to be found 
in the other Gospels: compare, for example, Matt. viii. 24—27, with Luke vi. 
47—49, and see Da Costa, The Four Witnesses, p. 28 sq. (Transl. Lond. 1851). 

8 Perhaps the term narrative may be more correctly applied than any other 
to the Gospel of St. Matthew: it neither presents to us so full a recital of details 
as we find in St. Mark, nor the same sort of historical sequence which we 
observe in St. Luke, nor yet again the same connection in our Lord’s discourses 
‘which we observe in St. John, but to a certain extent combines some distinctive 
features of all. Antiquity well expressed this feeling in the comprehensive title 
τὰ λόγια (Papias, ap. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. iii. 89), which we may perhaps suitably 
paraphrase, as Papias himself seems to suggest (by his subsequent use of the 
terms τῶν κυριακῶν λογίων, --- αὐ the reading is not certain), as τὰ ὑπὸ Χρισ- 


- 


Lect.I. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 29 


we may observe the more isolated though more unqualified 
Hebraistic expressions,' and even the occasional Latinisms,? 
that diversify the graphic but more detached memoirs® of 
the exponent of the preaching of St. Peter; * we may trace 
the Hellenic coloring that gives such grace and interest 
to the compiled history of St. Luke;’ we may recognize 


τοῦ λεχϑέντα ἢ πραχϑέντα: see Liicke, in Studien u. Kritiken for 1833, p. 501 
sq., Meyer, Kommentar. iber Matth. p.4, note, and Lange, Leben Jesu, i. 5. 2, 
Vol. i. p. 161. The general structure of this Gospel has been well investigated in 
a programme by Harless, entitled Lucubrationum Evangelia Canonica spectan- 
tium Pars ii. Erlang. 1842. As essays of this character are not always accessible, 
it may be worth noticing that the learned author finds in the Gospel five 
divisions: the first, ch. i.—iv., ver. 23-25 forming the epilogue; the second, 
ch. iv.—ix., ver. 85—88 similarly forming the epilogue; the third, ch. x.—xiv.; 
the fourth, ch. xv.—xix. 1, 2; and the jifth, ch. xix. 3 to the end. See pp. 6, 7. 

1 We may especially notice the occasional introduction of Aramaic words, 
most probably the very words that fell from our Lord’s lips; comp. ch. iii. 17, 
Boavepyés; ch. ν. 41, ταλιϑὰ Kodut; ch. vii. 84, ἐφφαϑά; ch. xiv. 35, ἀββᾶ. See 
Da Costa, Four Witnesses, p. 89. 

2 These have been often specified; it may be enough to notice, σπεκουλάτωρ, 
ch. vi. 27; ξεστής, ch. vii. 4, 8; κεντυρίων, ch. xv. 89, 44, 45, and the use of χαλ- 
κὸς for money, ch. vi. 8. Some good remarks on other peculiarities of the style 
of St. Mark, especially in reference to his adoption of less usual words and forms 
of expression, will be found in Credner, Hinleitung in das N. T. § 49, p. 102 sq., 
and in the Introd. of Fritz, Evang. Marci, p. xlv.sq. The assertion that this 
Gospel was originally written in Latin, and the appeal to a so-called Latin orig- 
inal, have been long since disposed of. See Tregelles and Horne, Introduction to 
the N. T. Vol. iv. p. 488. 

8 This term may perhaps serve to characterize the general aspects of the Gospel 
of St. Mark, and to distinguish it from the more distinctly historic Gospel of St. 
Luke; it also seems well to accord with the spirit of the statements preserved by 
Eusebius, Hist. Hccel. 111. 39. A few remarks by De Wette on the characteristics 
of this Gospel will be found in the Studien u. Kritiken for 1828, p. 789. See also 
Lange, Leben Jesu, 1.7.2, Vol. i. p. 247; and for details, Da Costa, Four Wit- 
nesses, p. 87 sq., Guerike, Hinleitung in das N. T. § 89. 8, p. 258 (ed. 2). 

4 It is perhaps unnecessary to substantiate this assertion by special quotations, 
as the connection between the second Evangelist and St. Peter seems now dis- 
tinctly admitted by all the best modern critics. The most important testimonies 
of antiquity to this effect are Papias, ap. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 111. 39, Irenzus, 
Her. 111.1, Clem. Alex. ap. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. v1. 14, and Origen, ap. JB. νι. 25. 

5 If in the first Gospel we recognize the Oriental tinge of thought and diction, 
and if in the second we detect some traces of the influence of Latin modes of 
thought, and of a primary destination for Roman converts, we can scarcely fail 
to acknowledge in the third Gospel the impress of Greek thought and culture 
(comp. Jerome, Comment. in Esaiam, vi. 9), and in its well-ordered and often 
flowing periods to discern the hand of the Greek proselyte; comp. Col. iv. 14, 
and notes in loc.; and see further, Da Costa, The Four Witnesses, Ὁ. 148, Lange, 
Leben Jesu, τ. 7.4, Vol.i. p. 253 sq., and for some detailsin reference to lane 
guage, Credner, Linleitung, § 59, p. 182 sq., Guerike, Hinlei‘ung, § 40. 4, p. 278, 

8* 


90 INTRODUCTORY CONSIDERATIONS ON THE 1στ.]. 


the marvellous and divine simplicity of the longer and 
more collective discourses * that form the bulk of the spir- 
itual® and, in some respects, supplemental® Gospel of St. 
John. All these things may well suggest to us medita- 
tions of the freshest interest; but as they belong to the 
critical essay, rather than to the popular lecture, we shall be 
wise, perhaps, to confine ourselves now only to the more 
strictly internal peculiarities, more especially those which 
characterize the different pictures presented to us of oui 
blessed Lord and Redeemer. 

Let us, however, never forget that in every effort to set 


Patritius, de Evangeliis, 1. 3. 5, Vol.i. p. 83 sq. In those parts (6. g. ch. 1. 
where we find a clearly marked Hebraistic coloring, it seems natural to conclude 
that we have before us, in perhaps not greatly changed forms, trustworthy docu- 
ments, supplied either by the blessed Virgin (in the chapter in question) or other 
privileged eye-witnesses (comp. ch. i. 2) and ministers of the word. Compare 
Gersdorf, Beitrage z. Sprachcharacteristik des N. T. p. 160 sq., Patritius, de 
Evangeliis, τ. 3. 4, Vol.i. p. 80; and for some general comments on St. Luke, the 
good lecture of Dr. Wordsworth, New Test. Vol. i. p. 180. 

1 The discourses of our Lord, as recorded by St. John, have been defined by 
Schmidt (Biblische Theologie, § 3, Ὁ. 23) as “‘ central,” in contrast with those of 
the Synoptical Gospels, which he calls more ‘‘ peripherisch.” The observation is 
fanciful, but perhaps has some truth in it: in St. John the Lord’s discourses 
certainly seem to turn more on His own divine person and His true relation to 
the Father, and the ideas and truths which flow therefrom, while those in the 
Synoptical Gospels relate more frequently to the general facts, features, and 
aspects of the kingdom of God. Comp. Ebrard, Kritik der Evang. Gesch. § 35, 
Ῥ. 148. 

2 Compare Clem. Alex. ap. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. v1. 14, τὸν μέντοι ᾿Ιωάννην 
ἔσχατον συνιδόντα ὅτι τὰ σωματικὰ ἐν τοῖς εὐαγγελίοις δεδήλωται, προτρα- 
πέντα ὑπὸ τῶν γνορίμων, Πνεύματι ϑεοφορηϑδέντα, πνευματικὸν ποιῆσαι 
εὐαγγέλιον. The same distinction is preserved by Augustine: —“ Tres isti Evan. 
gelistez in his rebus maxime diversati sunt quas Christus per humanam carnem 
temporaliter gessit: porro autem Joannes ipsam maxime divinitatem Domini 
qua VPatre est wqualis intendit.””»— De Consensu Evang. 1. 4, Vol. iii. 1045 (ed. 
Migné). 

3 This character of St. John's Gospel has of late been denied, but, as it would 
seem, wholly unsuccessfully. That this was not the special object of that sub- 
lime Gospel may be fully conceded (see Luthardt, das Johan. Evang. τν. 1, Vol. 
i. p. 109 sq.), but that St. John wrote with a full cognizance of what his three 
predecessors had related, that he presupposed it in his readers, and enlarged 
upon events not recorded elsewhere, seems almost indisputable. That this was 
distinctly the belief of antiquity is fully conceded by Liicke, Comment. wber 
Johan. 111. 13, Vol. i. p. 187 (ed. 8). See especially Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 111. 24; 
Jerome, de Viris Illustr. cap. 9; and compare the expressions in the Muratorian 
fragment on the Canon, reprinted in Routh, Melig. Sacre, Vol. iv. p. 3 sq. 
(ed. 1). 


ἽΤΕΟΥ.Ι. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 31 


forth the life of our Master, our whole superstructure not 
only rests upon the four Gospels, but has to 
be formed out of the elements which they Me Faia 
supply, and that unsymmetrical will it be and ὅρον WJeltand 
incongruous, unless, like wise master-builders, 
we learn to appreciate the inner and essential distinctions 
between the precious materials which we are presuming to 
employ. Here has been the grave error of only too many 
of those who have taken in hand to draw up an account 
of those things that are fully believed among 
us. Here harmonies have failed to edify ; here 
critical histories have often proved so lamentably deficient. 
Nay, I believe that there is no one thing which the long 
roll of harmonies and histories, extending from the days of 
Tatian down to our own,' teach us more distinctly than 
this, —that no true picture of the earthly life of our Re- 
deemer can ever be realized, unless by God’s grace we 
learn both to feel and to appreciate the striking individu- 
ality of the four Gospels in their portraiture of the life of 
Christ, and are prepared to estimate duly their peculiar and 
fore-ordered characteristics.” 

That antiquity failed not to recognize these individu- 
alities, we are reminded by the admirable treatise of Augus- 
tine on the Consent of the Evangelists,?>—a treatise from 


Luke t.1. 


1 A full list of these will be found in the useful but unsound work of Hase, 
Leben Jesu, § 21, p. 21 sqq., and a shorter and selected list in the Harmonia 
Evangelica of Tischendorf, p. ix. sqq. Those which most deserve consideration 
seem to be, Gerson, Concordia Evangelistarum (about 1471); Chemnitz, Harmo- 
nia Quatuor Evangelistarum (vol. i. published in 1593); Lightfoot, Harmony, 
etc. of the N. T. (Lond. 1655); Lamy, Harmonia sive Concordia Quatuor Evan- 
gelistarum, Paris, 1689; Bengel, Richtige Harmonie der vier Evangelien, Tubing. 
1736; Newcome, Harmony of Gospels, Dubl. 1778; Clausen, Tabule Synoptice, 
Havniz, 1829; Greswell, Harmonia Evangelica, Oxon. 1840; Robinson, Harmony 
of the Four Gospels, Boston, 1845, and (with useful notes) Lond. (Relig. Tract 
Society); Anger, Synopsis Evangeliorum, Lips. 1851; Tischendorf, Synopsis 
Evangelica, Lips. 1851; and, lastly, the voluminous work of Patritius, de Evan- 
geliis, Friburg, 1853. 

2 See some good remarks in the Introduction to Lange, Leben Jesu, especially 
τ Sl; Viol. 1. Ὁ: 98. Ε6- 

3 We might also specify, as illustrative of this view of the individual character 
of the four Gospels, the ancient and well-known comparison of the four Gos- 


32 INTRODUCTORY CONSIDERATIONS ON THE = Lect. I. 


which, though we may venture to differ in details, we can 
never safely depart in our general principles of combina- 
tion and adjustment.’ No writer has more ably maintained 
the fundamental position, that the four evangelical records 
in their delineation of the life of Christ have noticeably 
different characteristics, — that they present our Redeemer 
to us under different aspects,?— and that these four histo- 
ries (to use the simile of another ancient writer),® though 
flowing from one paradise, go forth to water the earth with 
four currents of different volume and direction. 
It was the neglect of these principles that made so many 
of the laborious harmonies of the sixteenth 
mires of earlier and seventeenth centuries both valueless and 
unedifying, and not improbably served to call 
out that antagonistic criticism which in these later days 
has acquired such an undue, and, it must be said, undesira- 
ble prominence.t These earlier efforts we may have never 


pels to the four living creatures mentioned in the Apocalypse (Irenzus, Her. 111. 
1). Though later writers (Athanasius, Augustine, Jerome, al.) varied somewhat 
in their adaptations of the symbols (see Wordsworth, Greek Test. Vol.i. p. 51), 
this fourfold comparison may be considered as the practical manifestation of the 
belief of the ancient Church in the distinct individuality of the four Gospels. 
The more usual order and application of the symbols is stated by Sedulius in the 
following lines, which may bear quotation : — 


Hoc Matthzus agens, hominem generaliter implet, 
Marcus ut alta fremit vox per deserta Leonis, 

Jura sacerdotii Lucas tenet ore juvenci, 

More volans aquilz verbo petit astra Joannes. 


1 Augustine appears, from his own statements, to have taken especial pains 
with this treatise. He alludes to it twice in his commentary on St. John (Tract. 
oxi. 1, Vol. iii. p. 1929, and again Tract cxvil. 2, Vol. iii. p. 1945), and in both 
cases speaks of it as composed with much labor: compare also his Ietractationes, 
Book 11. ch. 16. 

2 See especially Book I. 2, 3, 4 (Vol. iii. p. 1044, ed Migné), where the different 
aspects under which our Redeemer was viewed by the Evangelist are specially 
noticed. What we have to regret in this valuable treatise is the somewhat low 
position assigned to St. Mark’s Gospel, the author of which, according to Augus- 
tine, is but the “pedissequus et breviator” of St. Matthew (ch. 2). Modern 
criticism has strikingly reversed this judgment. 

3 Jerome, Pref. in Matth. cap. 4, Vol. vii. p. 18 (ed. Migné). 

41 regret to have to express my dissent from the views of my friend, Dean 
Alford, in the Introduction to his New Testament, Vol. i. § 7. Careful investi- 
gation seems to justify the opinion that between the forced harmonies, which 


1ἘῸτ. 1. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 33 


seen, perhaps never heard of. We may smile perhaps at 
the luckless sedulity that deemed it necessary to assign to 
St. Peter nine denials of our Lord,’ and we may perhaps 
scarcely believe that such abuses of Evangelistic harmony 
could have been originated by one who coéperated with 
Luther, and whose works were not without influence on 
his contemporaries, and on them that followed him. We 
may perhaps now smile at such efforts; but still, if one only 
looks at some of the harmonies of the present century, it 
seems abundantly clear that these influences are even now 
not wholly inoperative;’ and that efforts to interweave por- 
tions of the sacred narrative, without a proper estimate of 
the different objects and characteristics of the Evangelists, 
still find among us some favor and reception. In our de- 
sire, however, to reject such palpably uncritical endeavors, 
let us, at any rate, respect the principle by which they 
appear to have been actuated,—a reverence, mistaken it 
is true, but still a reverence for every jot and tittle of the 

written word; and let us beware, too, that we are not 
tempted into the other extreme, — that equally exagger- 


found favor in older times, and the blank rejection of evangelical harmony, 
except in broadest outlines, which has been so much advocated in our own 
times, there is a safe via media, which, if followed thoughtfully and patiently, 
will often be found to lead us to aspects of the sacred narrative which are in 
the highest degree interesting and instructive. Variations are not always neces- 
sarily inaccuracies: could we only transport ourselves to the right point of view, 
we should see things in their true perspective; and that we can more often do so 
than is generally supposed, has, I venture to think, been far too summarily denied. 
For some good remarks on Bbaiel harmony, see By: Chron. Synops. p. 5 
sqq., Da Costa, Four Witnesses, p. 1 sqq. (Transl.). 

1 Osiander, Harmon. Evang. Ὁ. 128 (Bas. 1561). This rigid and somewhat 
arrogant aivine was born A. D. 1498: he was educated at Wittemberg, and after- 
wards at Nuremberg, in which latter city he became a preacher at one of the 
churches. He warmly supported Luther in his attack on Papal indulgences; 
but afterwards fell into errors respecting the application of Christ’s righteous- 
ness and the divine image, which he appears to have defended with undue con- 
fidence and pertinacity. See Mosheim, Eccl. Hist. rv. 8.2.1, Vol. iii. p. 357 (ed. 
Soames); Tholuck, Lit. Anzeiger for 1833, No. 54; and for a short notice of his 
life, Schréckh, Kirchengeschichte (Reformation), Vol. iv. p. 572. 

21 fear I must here specify the learned and laborious work of Dr. Stroud 
(New Greek Harmony of the Four Gospels), in which in this same case of St. 
Peter’s denials the event is recounted under different forms seven times; see the 
Introduction, p. clxxxix. 


94 INTRODUCTORY CONSIDERATIONS ON THE Lect. I. 


ated view of modern times, that the discordances of the 
sacred writers are such as defy reconciliation, and that all, 
save the great events in the history of our Redeemer, must 
ever remain to us-a collection of confused and incon- 
sequent details. 
In one word, let us remember, that though it is uncriti- 
Beli scaatie cal, unwise, and even presumptuous to fabri- 
nation the trueprine cate a patchwork narrative, yet that it is not 
siple. ν 
only possible, but our very duty to endeavor 
judiciously to combine. Let us remember that we have 
tour holy pictures, limned by four.loving hands, of Him 
who was “fairer than the children of men,” 
and that these have been vouchsafed to us, 
that by varying our postures we may catch fresh beauties 
and fresh glories.? Let us then fear not to use one to see 
more in light what another has left more in shade; let us 


Psal. xlv. 2. 


1 For some useful observations on and answers to the extreme views that 
have been maintained on the supposed discrepancies or divergences that have 
been found in the Gospel history, see Ebrard, Kritik der Evang. Geschichte, 
§ 19, p. 71 sqq. 

2 Modern writers on harmonistic study commonly draw distinctions between 
Synopsis and Harmony, and again between Chronology and Order of Events 
(Akoluthie). Such distinctions are useful, and serve to assist us in keeping clearly 
in view the principles on which our combination is constructed. The problem, 
however, we have to solve can really be regarded under very simple aspects: 
it is merely this, (1) to determine, where possible, by reference to chronological 
data, the order and connection of events; (2) to reconcile any striking diver- 
gences we may meet with in accounts of the same event; compare Chemnitz, 
Harmon. Quatuor. Evang. Proem. cap. 5. In regard of (2) we must be guided 
by the results of a sound exegesis of each one of the supposed discordant pas- 
sages, combined with a just appreciation of the apparently leading aims, objects, 
and characteristics of the inspired records to which they respectively belong. 
In regard of (1), where chronology fails us, we can only fall back on the prin- 
ciple of Chemnitz: —‘‘ Nos querimus ordinem, cujus rationes, si non semper 
certe et ubique manifesta, probabiles tamen nec absurd nec vero absimiles 
reddi possunt.” — Harmonia Evang. Vol. i. p. 18 (Hamb. 1704). 

3 Compare with this the judicious observations of Da Costa:—‘To picture 
Christ to the eye in equal fulness, that is, as an actual whole, and that in all His 
aspects, one witness was very far from being sufficient; but Divine wisdom 
could here accomplish its object by means of a fourfold testimony and a four- 
sided delineation. In order to this, it was meet that each of four Evangelists 
should represent to us, not only the doings and sayings, but the very person of 
the Saviour, from his own individual point of view, and in harmony with his 
own personal character and disposition.” — The Four Witnesses, Ὁ. 118 (Transl.). 


Lecr.I. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 35 


scruple not to trace the lineament that one has left unex- 
pressed, but another has portrayed. Let us do all this, 
nothing doubting; but let us beware, O, let us beware, 
lest in seeking to work them up mechanically into what 
might seem to us a well-adjusted whole, instead of order 
we bring in confusion, distortion instead of symmetry, 
burning instead of beauty. 

Let me conclude with a few illustrations of those inter- 
nal characteristics and individualities of the 
four Gospels, especially in reference to the ,,,2sravions of 
picture of our Lord’s life, to which I have ἐογίδιϊες above αἷ- 
alluded, and so prepare ourselves for thought- 
ful recognitions, in future lectures, of divinely ordered dif- 
ferences, and for wise and sober principles of combination. 

How striking is the coincidence between the peculiar 
nature of the contents of the Gospel of St. ia 

Individuality of 

Matthew and what Scripture relates to us of s+. Matthew's Gos- 
the position of him that wrote it. How natu- ἢ 
rally we might expect from him who sat at the receipt of 
custom on the busy shores of the lake of Gennesareth, and 
who had learnt to arrange and to methodize in the callings 
of daily life,—how naturally we might expect careful 
grouping and well-ordered combination.’ And how truly 
we find it! To leave unnoticed the vexed question of the 
exact nature of the Sermon on the Mount,?— to whom save 
to St. Matthew do we owe that effective grouping of par- 
ables which we find in the thirteenth chapter,? wherein 


1 See the thoughtful comments of Lange, Leben Jesu, 1. 7. 2, Vol. i. p. 287 sq. 
It may perhaps be urged that we are here tacitly assuming that the details of the 
office of a τελώνης were more in harmony with modern practice than can 
actually be demonstrated. That an apxiTeA@yns (sub magistro) was especially 
concerned with administrative details can be distinctly shown, but that the 
simple collector (portitor), such as St. Matthew probably was, had any duties of 
an analogous nature, may be regarded as doubtful. The very necessities of the 
case, however, imply that the ‘“‘portitor” would have to render constant 
accounts to his superior officer,—and this seems quite enough to warrant the 
comments in the text. See Smith, Dict. of Antig. 5. v. *‘ Publicani;* Jahn, 
Archeolog. Bibl. § 241; Winer, Realwérterb. s. v. ‘ Zoll,’”’ Vol. ii. p. 789 sq. 

2 See the comments on its probable structure in Lecture Iv. 

3 In this chapter we have the longer parables of the Sower (ver. 8—9) and of 


36 INTRODUCTORY CONSIDERATIONS ON THE Lect. I. 


each one by its juxtaposition imparts additional force and 
clearness to those with which it stands in immediate con- 
tact? Whose hand was it save the wise publican’s that 
wove into narrative that glorious garland of miracles of 
which the eighth and ninth chapters are nearly entirely 
composed?! Who but he has brought together in such 
illustrative combinations the Lord’s last prophecies, and the 
partially prophetic parables that usher in that most solemn 
revelation of our Redeemer to His Church, which con- 
cludes with the twenty-fifth chapter ?? 

Ee hie But to narrow our observations to that 
portraiture of our With which we are more especially concerned, 
Lord. : 

—with what force and effect are the contrasts, 
which such habits of combination naturally suggest,’ em- 
ployed in presenting to us vivid and impressive aspects of 
our Redeemer’s history. In what striking antithesis do the 


the Tares and the Wheat (ver. 2480), and the shorter comparisons of the King- 
dom of Heaven with the grain of Mustard Seed (ver. 81, 32), Leaven (ver. 38), 
the Treasure in a field (ver. 44), the Merchantman and the Pearl (ver. 45, 46), 
and the Net cast into the sea (ver. 47, 48). The illustrative connection that 
exists between these parables can hardly escape the notice of the observant 
reader. We have, as it were, seven varied aspects of the kingdom of God on 
earth. In the first parable we have placed before us the various classes in the 
visible Church; in the second we contemplate the origin and presence of evil 
therein, and its final removal and overthrow; in the third we see the kingdom 
of God in its aspects of growth and extension; in the fourth in its pervasive 
and regenerative character; in the ji/th and sixth in reference to its precious- 
ness, whether as discovered accidentally or after deliberate search; in the 
seventh in its present state of inclusiveness combined with its future state of 
selection and unsparing separation. See Wordsworth, New Test. Vol. i. p. 39; 
and compare Knox, Remains, Vol. i. pp. 407—425. 

1 In these two chapters we have the narrative of the cleansing of a leper (viii. 
2—4); the healings of the centurion’s servant (viii. 5—18), of St. Peter’s wife's 
mother (viii. 14, 15), and of numerous demoniacs (viii. 16); the stilling of the 
winds and sea (viii. 24—26); the healing of the demoniacs of Gadara (viii. 23— 
34); of the paralytic on his bed (ix. 2—8), and of the woman with an issue of 
blood (ix. 20—22); the raising of Jairus’ daughter (ix. 23—25), the healing of 
two blind men (ix. 28—30), and the dispossession of a dumb demoniac (ix. 32—34). 

2 Especially the similitude of the Unready Servant (xxiv. 43—51), and the 
parables of the Ten Virgins (xxv. 1—12), and of the Talents (xxv. 14—30.) 

8 Compare Lange, Leben Jesu, 1.7.2, Vol. i. p. 240. The outlines and general 
construction of St. Matthew’s Gospel are described by Ebrard, Rritik der Evang. 
Geschichte, § 22, p. 86 sq., but not under any very novel or suggestive aspects. 
For some remarks on the characteristic peculiarities of this Gospel, see Davidson, 
Introduction to N. T. Vol. i. p. 52 sq. 


Lect.I. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 3T 


opening chapters set before us the new-born King of Peace 
and the savage Herod; the mysterious adora- gy, τ 1,8. 
tion of the Magi, and the hasty flight for life 
into a strange land; the baptism, with the «0. 1,15. 
opened heavens and descending Spirit, and 
the temptation, with all its circumstances of 
satanic trial. Observe too, how, thus height- 
ened by contrast as well as heralded by prophecy, the 
Lord appears to us as the Son of David and 
the Son of Abraham, the spiritual King of 
spiritual Judaism, the Messiah of the Israel of God Yet 
withal observe how the Theocratic King and the suffering 
Messiah pass and repass before our eyes, in ever new and 
ever striking interchange, and how a strange and deep tone 
of prophetic sadness blends with all we read, and prepares 
us as it were for Gethsemane and Calvary; and yet again, 
when the Lord has broken the bands of death, whose save 
St. Matthew’s is that inspired pen that records that out- 
pouring of exalted majesty, “ All power is given me in 
heaven and in earth”? To whom save to the 
first Evangelist owe we the record of that 
promise which forms the most consolatory heritage of the 
Church, “Lo! I am with you alway, even 
unto the end of the world”? ι 

No less strongly marked is the individuality of St. Mark’s 
Gospel. No less clearly in this inspired rec- 
ord can we trace the impressible and fervid δ 
character which we almost instinctively κι αι, 1. 
ascribe to John Mark, the son of Mary (for I 
hold the identity of the Evangelist with the nephew of 


ch. tii. 18 sq. and 
ch, iv. 1sq. 


Chsite 1. 


Matt. xxviii. 18. 


Matt. xxviii. 20. 


1 Compare the fragments of Irenzus, taken from Possini, Catena Patrum, and 
cited in the various editions of that ancient writer (Grabe, p. 471; Massuet, Vol. 
i. p. 337); it is as follows: Td κατὰ Ματϑαῖον εὐαγγέλιον πρὸς ᾿Ιουδαίους 
ἐγράφη: οὗτοι yap ἐπεϑύμουν πάνυ σφόδρα ex σπέρματος Δαβὶδ Χριστόν. ‘O 
δὲ Ματϑαῖος, καὶ ἔτι μᾶλλον σφοδροτέραν ἔχων τὴν τοιαύτην ἐπιϑυμίαν, παν- 
τοίως ἔσπευδε πληροφορίαν παρέχειν αὐτοῖς, ὧς εἴη ἐκ σπέρματος Δαβὶδ ὃ 
Χριστός. Διὸ καὶ ἀπὸ γενέσεως αὐτοῦ ἤρξατο. Compare Ebrard, Kritik der 
Evang. Geschichte, § 21, p. 85. 


4 


38 INTRODUCTORY CONSIDERATIONS ON THE  Lect.I. 


Barnabas),!— to him that seems to have been so forward 
in action, and yet, on one occasion at least, too ready to 
fall away. Isay on one occasion at least, for there are 
many whose judgment demands our respect who also find 
in the young man with the hastily caught-up 
linen garment, who followed but to flee, him 
who alone has handed down to us that isolated notice? 
Time would fail me if I were to name all the many 
touches that stamp this impress of individuality on the 
work of the second Evangelist. Do we not recognize his 
graphic pen and his noticeable love of the objective and 
the circumstantial in almost every event, and especially in 
every miracle, which he has been moved to record? Is not 
this plainly apparent in the narrative of the healing of the 
paralytic, in that of the Gadarene demoniac, 

Vaknou ἴῃ {86 account of the gradual recovery of the 
pees ma blind man of Bethsaida, and in the striking 
description of the demoniac boy? [5 not this 

to be felt in the various touches that diversify almost every 
incident that finds a place in his inspired record ?® Is it not 


Mark xiv. 51. 


1 This opinion has of late been considered dov'**") (see Kienlen, Stud. vu. Krit. 
for 1843, p. 423), but apparently on insufficient g«vunds. The silence of Papias 
as to the connection with Barnabas, on which an argument has been based, can- 
not fairly be pressed, as in the passage in question (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. iii. 39) 
Papias appears occupied not with the question who St. Mark was, but simply with 
the nature of the testimony which he delivered and his dependence on St. Peter. 
Ecclesiastical tradition seems to have recognized three bearing this name, —the 
Evangelist, John Mark, and the nephew of Barnabas; but forsuch a distinction 
still less can be said. Comp. Coteler, Constit. Apost. 11. 57, Vol. i. p. 265. The 
opinion of Da Costa (Four Witnesses, p. 114 sq.), that St. Mark was the devout 
soldier who attended on Cornelius (Acts x. 7), is a mere fancy, wholly destitute 
of even traditional testimony. 

2 Such was the opinion of Chrysostom (in loc.), Gregory the Great (Moral. 
XIV. 23), and one or two other ancient writers. It may, however, justly be con- 
sidered very precarious, as the common and not unnatural supposition that the 
young man was a disciple does not seem to accord with the comment of Papias, 
οὔτε yap ἤκουσε τοῦ Κυρίου, οὔτε παρηκολούϑησεν αὐτῷ, ap. Euseb. Hist. 
Eccl. 111. 39. 

8 These touches are very numerous, but are perhaps more easily felt than speci- 
fied. We may notice, however, the effective insertion on three occasions of the 
very Aramaic words that our Lord was pleased to use (ch. v. 41, vii. 34, xiv. 36), 
of the emphatic ἀκούετε prefixed to the parable of the Sower (ch. iv. 3), and of 
the words of power addressed to the winds and sea (ch. y. 39). Sometimes 


Lect.I. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 39 


St. Mark that presents to us our Master amid all the lone- 
liness and horrors of the wilderness, “with the wild beasts”? 
Is it not he who brings up, asit were before our 
very eyes, our Redeemer on the storm-tossed 
lake, “in the hinder part of the ship asleep on a pillow”? 
Is it not he who so frequently and precisely 
-notes almost every distinctive gesture and 
look,! and is it not to him that we owe the last touch, as it 
were, to that affecting picture of our Lord’s 
tenderness and love, when He “took up the 
young children in His arms, and put His hands upon 
them, and blessed them”? 

But still more does this individuality appear — and with 
this we are now most concerned —in the psineg eet 
broad and general picture which this Evangel- portraiture of our 
ist presents to us of his heavenly Master. If oa 
in the first Gospel we recognize transitions from theocratic 
glories to meek submissions, in the second we see our 
Redeemer in one light only, of majesty and power. If in 
St. Matthew’s record we behold now the glorified and now 


Mark i. 13. 


Mark iv. 88, 


Mark x. 16. 


details are brought out by the introduction of a single word (ch. xv. 48, τολμή- 
oas), sometimes by the simple use of ἃ stronger expression than is found in the 
corresponding passage in the other Gospels (compare, for instances, Mark i. 10, 
σχιζομένους τοὺς οὐρανούς, with Matt. iii. 16, Luke iii. 21; ch. i. 12, ἐκβάλλει, 
with Matt. iv.1, Luke iv. 1; ch. ii. 12, ἐξίστασϑαι, with Matt. ix. 8; ch. iv. 87, 
γεμίζεσϑαι, with Matt. viii. 24, Luke viii. 23; ch. vi. 46, ἀποταξάμενος, with 
Matt. xiv. 43; ch. xiv. 88, €xdauBetoSat καὶ ἀδημονεῖν, with Matt. xxvi. 87), 
while at other times we seem made conscious, perhaps merely by a repetition of 
a word or phrase (ch. i. 14, 15, ii. 16, iv. 1, xi. 28, al.), perhaps merely by a 
strengthened form (e. g. cognate accus., ch. iii. 29, iv. 41, v. 42, vii. 18, xiii. 19), 
of that graphic vigor which so peculiarly characterizes the record of the second 
Evangelist. The single parable which is peculiar to this Gospel (ch. iv. 26 sq.) © 
may be alluded to as bearing every impress of the style of St. Mark. 

1 Many instances of this could be cited: we may pause to specify the all- 
embracing look (περιβλέπεσϑαι) of our Lord, which, with the exception of 
Luke vi. 10, is noticed only by this Evangelist (ch. iii. 5, 34, v. 82, x. 23, xi. 11), 
the expression of inward emotions on different occasions (ch. vii, 34, viii. 12. x. 
14, 21), and the very interesting fact of our Lord’s heading His band of disciples 
on the last journey to Jerusalem, mentioned in ch. x. 22. Compare Da Costa, 
Four Witnesses, Ὁ. 121; Lange, Leben Jesu, 1.7. 2, Vol.i. p.179 sq.; Guericke, 
Einleitung, ὃ 39,8, p. 258 note; and Davidson, Introduction to N. T. Vol. i. p. 
150. 


40 INTRODUCTORY CONSIDERATIONS ON THE = Lecz.I. 


the suffering Messiah, in St. Mark’s vivid pages we see only 
the all-powerful incarnate Son of God; the voice we hear 
is that of the Lion of the Tribe of Judah. With what 
peculiar variety of expression does this inspired writer 
notice the awe and amazement no less of the familiar cir- 
ee cle of the disciples than of the more impres- 
Mark ix. 14; αἱ Sible multitude. With what circumstantial 
touches does he put before us Him on 
whose lips the multitude so hung that they had scarce 


Mork wv. 1. room to stand, or time to eat,— Him that 
a 7) ** wrought such wondrous works that all men 
Mark v. 20. did marvel, yea, and unbelieving Nazareth 
Mark vi. 2 was astonished,— Him whose fame was spread 


Mark vii. 56. 


all the more that He sought to conceal it, — 
Yark vi. 56. 


Him before whose feet, “whithersoever He 
entered, villages or cities,” the sick were laid out, and laid 
out only to be made whole. ͵ 

These things can escape the observation of no attentive 
reader, nor will they, perhaps, fail almost to convince him, as 
they have almost convinced me, that he whose narrative, 
like Stephen’s glance, penetrates beyond the clouds, and 
tells us how the Lord “was received up into 
heaven and sat down at the right hand of 
God,” was John Mark the Evangelist. 


Mark xvi. 19. 


1 It is right to speak with diffidence on a point on which modern critics and 
commentators (even Dr. Wordsworth) have judged differently. It is not desira- 
ble here to enter upon a criticism of external evidence, which will be found 
clearly and ably stated elsewhere (see especially the critical notes to the new 
edition of Tischendorf’s Greek Testament; Meyer, Comment on St. Mark, p. 170 
sqq.; and Tregelles, Printed Text of the N. T. pp. 246—261), except to remark 
that the only clear and unqualified external evidence against the passage is now 
reduced to B, the Latin Codex Bobbiensis, some old MSS. of the Armenian 
Version, an Arabic Version in the Vatican, and perhaps we may add Severus of 
Antioch and Hesychius of Jerusalem (see Tischendorf, 7. c.), — the testimonies 
of Eusebius and Jerome being not so certain (see Wordsworth, Your Gospels, p. 
127). As a set off against the arguments founded on differences in the use of a 
few words and expressions (see Norton, Genuineness of the Gospels, Vol.i. p. 219, 
ed. 2), we may certainly plead the circumstantial tone of ver. 10 (πενϑοῦσιν καὶ 
kAaiovow), of ver. 12 (ἐν ἑτέρᾳ μορφῇ, πορευομένοις εἰς ἀγρόν), the specifica- 
tions, of ver. 17 sq.,— against which the objections commonly urged seem most 
noticeably weak,— and the conclusion of ver. 19. Why may ot this portion 


Leot. I. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 41 


Still more clearly, if it be possible, can we recognize 
the individuality of the Gospel of St. Luke. 
Here the coincidences between the nature of Pj She ia 
the history and what we know of him who 
wrote it, — the wise physician of Antioch,'— the proselyte 
as it has been thought of the gate,—the only one of the 
four Evangelists who bore in his body the mark of belong- 
ing to the wide world that was not of the stock of Abra- 
ham,’—meet us again and again, and press themselves upon 
our attention, in ever new and ever suggestive combina- 
tions. I may allude in passing to the frequent and char- 
acteristic statement of the circumstances or reasons that 
gave rise to the events or discourses recorded,’ which we 


have been written by St. Mark at a later period, when mere verbal peculiari- 
ties might have altered, but when general sentiment and style might, as we 
seem to observe is the case, remain wholly unchanged? To speculate on the 
causes which led to the interruption at the end of the 8th verse is perhaps idle. 
The terrible persecution under Nero, A. D. 64, is, however, somewhat plausibly 
urged as a possible period when the Evangelist might have suddenly sought 
safety by flight, leaving the record, which he had been so pressed to write 
(Euseb. Hist. Hecl. 11. 15, νι. 14), unfinished, and to be concluded perhaps in 
another land, and under more peaceful circumstances. Comp. Norton, Genuine- 
ness of the Gospels, Vol. i. p. 221. 

1 Compare Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 11. 4,--- Λουκᾶς τὸ μὲν γένος ὧν τῶν ἀπ᾽ 
᾿Αντιοχείας ; see also Jerome, Catal. Script. cap. 16. This statement has been 
recently considered doubtful (Winer, RWB. Art “ Lucas,” Vol. ii. p. 85; Meyer, 
Einleitung, p. 182), and due merely to a mistaken identification of the Evange- 
list with Lucius (Acts xiii. 1), but apparently without sufficient reason. The 
recent attempt to identify St. Luke with Silas has been noticed, but refuted by 
Dr. Davidson, Introduction, Vol. ii. p. 20. 

2 This has been usually and, as it would seem, correctly inferred from Col. iv. 
14, where St. Luke and Demas are named by themselves, and, with Epaphras, 
not included in the list which preceded (ver. 10, 11) of those who were of the 
circumcision; see notes zn loc. Ἶ 

3 This may be observed especially in the way in which the parables, peculiar to 
this Evangelist, are commonly introduced into the sacred narrative. Compare 
ch. vii. 39 sq., x. 30 sq., xii. 13 sq., xviii. 1. and very distinctly, xix. 11. We 
may also here specify St. Luke’s account of the outward circumstances that led 
to our Lord’s being born at Bethlehem, the valuable clew he gives us to one of 
the significances of the Transfiguration (ch. ix. 31), the notice how St. Peter 
came to be armed with a sword (ch. xxii. 38), the mention of our Lord’s being 
first blindfolded, and then bidden to prophecy who struck Him (ch. xii. 68; 
compare Blunt, Coincidences of the Gospels, No. X11. p. 47); and, to conclude a 
list which might be made much longer, the allusion to the circumstance which 
led to our Lord’s being taken before Herod (ch. xxiii. 6 sq.). Compare also 
Lange, Leben Jesu, τ. 7. 2, Vol.i. p. 256. 


4* 


42 INTRODUCTORY CONSIDERATIONS ON THE [1Εσδτ.]1. 


find so strikingly in this Gospel. I may notice the pecu- 
liarly reflective, and, if I may use the term, psychological 
comments,’ which the thoughtful physician so often passes 
on the actors or the circumstances which he brings forward 
in his inspired narrative. 
These things we can here only allude to in passing; 
we may, however, with profit to ourselves 
om Dw % »yause somewhat on the portraiture of our 
Redeemer as presented to us by this Evan- 
gelist. If, as I said, St. Matthew presents to us our Re- 
deemer more especially as the Messiah, the Son of Abra- 
ham and the Son of David; if St. Mark more especially 
presents Him to us as the incarnate and wonder-working 
Son of God, assuredly St. Luke presents Him to us in the 
most wide and universal aspects? as the God-man, the 


1 We may specify a few instances; 6. g. the passing comment on the as yet 
imperfect perceptions of Joseph and Mary, ch. ii. 50, 51; the notice of the 
expectancy of the people, ch. iii. 15; the glimpse given us of the inward thoughts 
of the Pharisee, ch. vii. 89; the passing remark on their spiritual state generally, 
ver. 30; the brief specification of their prevailing characteristic, ch. xvi. 14; the 
sketch of the principles of action adopted by the spies sent forth by the chief 
priests and scribes, ch. xx. 20; the notice of the entry of Satan into Judas, ch. 
xxii. 8, and the significant comment on the altered relations between Pilate and 
Herod, ch. xxiii. 12. We may remark in passing that the difference between 
these comments and those which we meet with in St. John’s Gospel is clear and 
characteristic. In St. John’s Gospel such comments are nearly always specially 
introduced to explain or to elucidate (comp. ch. iii. 28, 24, iv. 8, 9. vi. 4, 10, 23, 
71, vii. 39, xi. 2, 18, al.); in St. Luke’s Gospel they are rather obiter dicta, the 
passing remarks of a thoughtful and reflective writer, called up from time to 
time by the varied aspects of the events which he is engaged in recording. 

‘Comp. Lange, Leben Jesu, 1. 7. 2. Vol. i. p. 256 sq. 

2 The universality of St. Luke’s Gospel has been often commented on. Not 

only in this Gospel do we feel ourselves often, as it were, transported into the 
domain of general history (comp. Da Costa, Four Witnesses, Ὁ. 154),— not only 
can we recognize the constantly recurring relations or contrasts of Judaism and 
Gentilism (Ebrard, Kritik der Evang. Gesch. § 31, p. 120),—not only may we, 
with most modern critics, see this universality very distinctly brought out in the 
notice of the mission of the Seventy Disciples (Credner, Linleitung, § 60, p. 144), 
but we may trace the same characteristic in some of the recitals of leading 
_ events, in some of the miracles and parables, and in several of our Lord’s iso- 
lated comments and observations. Consider, for example, ch. ii. 81, 82; iv. 27; 
ix. 1—6 (especially when contrasted with Matt. x. 5—6), ix. 52 sq. x. 80 sq., Xvi. 
16, xvii. 11 sq., xix. 88 (as contrasted with Matt. xxi. 9, Mark xi. 9, 10, John 
xii, 13,—in all of which the reference is to the theocratic rather than to the 
universal King), xxiv. 47; and compare Patritius, de Lvangeliis, 1. 8. 5. 80, Vol.i. 
p- 92. 


Π801.1. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 43 


Friend and Redeemer of fallen humanity, yea, even as his 
own genealogy declares it, not merely the Son of David 
and the Son of Abraham, but the Son of Adam and the 
Son of God. With what affecting delineation does He 
who tenderly loved the race He came to save appear to us 
in the raising of the son of the widow of 
Nain, —in the narrative of her who was for- “7%. 
. : Ch. vit. 37 sq. 
given “because she loved much,”—Zin the ἘΠΕ 
εἰ Ch. xv. 8 sq.3 also 

parables of the lost sheep, the lost coin, and ὅπ sat. eis. 10. 
the prodigal son,—in the address to the “25% 


. Ch. xi. 11 sq. 

daughters? of Jerusalem,—=in the prayer for ~~ rent 
a 2 ᾿ = Ἂ = Ch. xxiii. 27 sq. 

those who had crucified Him,—in the gra- πὶ viii a4, 


cious promise to the penitent malefactor, ομ. ται. 40. 
vouchsated even while the lips that spake it 
were quivering with agonies of accumulated suffering. 

In all these things, and in how many more than these 
that could easily be adduced, see we not the living picture 
of Him who was at once the Son of Man in mercy and 
the Son of God in power, whose grace and redemptive 
blessings extended to both Jew and Gentile, and who, 
even as He is borne up into the clouds of heaven, passes 
from our view in the narrative of St. Luke 
blessing those from whom He is parting ;— , 
“and it came to pass while He blessed them, He was 
parted from them and carried up into heaven, and they 
worshipped Him, and returned to Jerusalem with great 
joy al 

On the internal characteristics of the Gospel of St. 


Ch, xxiv. 50. 


1 This difference did not escape the notice of Chrysostom; “O μὲν Ματϑαῖος, 
ἅτε Ἑβραίοις γράφων, οὐδὲν πλέον ἐζήτησε δεῖξαι, ἢ ὅτι ἀπὸ ᾿Αβραὰμ καὶ 
Δαυὶδ ἦν: ὃ δὲ Λουκᾶς ἅτε κοινῇ πᾶσι διαλεγόμενος καὶ ἀνωτέρω τὸν 
λόγον ἀνάγει, μέχρι τοῦ Addu προϊών, in Matt. Hom. 1. p.7 (ed. Bened). See 
also Origen, ap. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. v1. 25. and the comments on this Gospel of 
Ebrard, Kritik der Ev. Geschichte, § 31, p. 120 sq. 

2 It may be observed that consistently with the characteristic of universality 
above alluded to, St. Luke brings before us, more frequently than the other 
Evangelists, notices of pious and ministering women. Comp. ch. ii. 36, viii. 2, 
xxiii. 27, 55; and see also vii. 87 sq. The same feature is especially noticeable in 
the Acts. Comp. ch. i. 14, viii. 12, ix. 2, ix. 36, xii. 12, xvi. 1, 14, al. Comp. Da 
Costa, Four Witnesses, p. 189 sq., Lange, Leben Jesu, Vol. i. 259. 


41 INTRODUCTORY CONSIDERATIONS ON ΤῊ  Lecv.I. 


John, and the picture that is there vouchsafed to us of our 
Lord, I need perhaps say but little, as that 
© ce sicgreiae Ae blessed Gospel is to so large an extent com- 
posed of the Redeemer’s own words, and as 
modern thought no less than the meditations of antiquity 
seem rarely to have missed seizing the true aspects of the 
divine image of the Son of God that is there presented to. 
us. The very words which I have chosen as my text 
declare the general object of the Gospel, — even “that we 
may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son 
of God;” the very opening words suggest 
the lofty sense in which that sonship is to be understood — 
“the Word was with God, and the Word 
was God.” As in the synoptical Gospels the 
Incarnate Son is mainly displayed to us in the operative 
majesty of outwardly-exercised omnipotence, so in the 
fourt> Gospel is He mainly revealed to us in the tranquil 
majesty of conscious unity with the eternal Father. Here 
we are permitted to catch mysterious glimpses of the very 
inner life of our redeeming Lord; we behold the reader of 
the thoughts and intents of the human heart,’ we note the 


Ch. χα. 81. 


Ch. i. 1. 


1 The excellent work of Luthardt (das Johanneische Evangelium, Niirnberg, 
1852) may here be especially noticed. In this the reader will find full and careful 
notices of all that is peculiar and distinctive in this Gospel, an exposition of the 
plan of development, and comments on the component parts of the narrative. 
The writer is perhaps too much carried away by his theory of the regular and 
dramatic structure of the Gospel, and sometimes too artificial in his analysis of 
details, still his work remains, and will probably long remain, as one of the best 
essays on St. John’s Gospel that has ever appeared. For a review, see Reuter, 
Repertor. Vol. 1Xxxv. p. 97. 

A good essay on the life and character of the Apostle will be found in Liicke, 
Comment. wiber Joh. § 2, Vol. i. p. 6 sqq., and some useful remarks on the general 
plan and arrangement of the Gospel, in Ebrard, Kritik der Ev. Geschichte, § 35, 
p. 141 sq. See also Davidson, Introduction, Vol. i. p. 334. 

2 Compare Augustine, de Consensu Evang. i. 5: ‘ Intelligi datur, si diligenter 
advertas, tres Evangelistas temporalia facta Domini et dicta que ad informandos 
mores vite presentis maxime valerent, copiosius persecutos, circa illam activam 
virtutem fuisse versatos: Joannem vero facta Domini multa pauciora narrantem, 
dicta vero ejus, ea presertim qu Trinitatis unitatem et vite eterne felicitatem 
insinuarent, diligentius et uberius conscribentem, in virtute contemplativ4 com- 
mendanda, suam intentionem predicationemque tenuisse.’? —Vol. iii. p. 1046 (ed. 
Migné). Compare Lange, Leben Jesu, 1. 7. 2, Vol. i. p. 265 sq. 

ὃ This seems a decided and somewhat noticeable characteristic of this Gospel. 


Lect.I. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 45 


ever-present consciousness of truest and innermost union 
with the Father of Spirits Yet we feel rather than see; 
Wwe are made conscious rather than observe. Here, in the 
stillness of our hearts, as we read those heavenly dis- 
courses, we seem to feel the Son of God speaking? to us 
“as a man speaketh with his friend;” His 
image seems slowly to rise up before us; the 
ideal picture gathers shape; we seem to see, yea in exalted 
moments we do see, limned as it were in the void before 
our eyes, “the King in His beauty;” heaven 
and earth melt away from our rapt gaze, we 
spiritually behold the very Redeemer of the world, we 
hear the reassuring voice, and we say, with a conviction 
deep as that of him whom this Gospel tells 
us of, “My Lord and my God.” 

On the picture of our Lord which this Gospel presents 
to us,® I am sure then I need say no more, I will only in 


Exodus xxiii. 11. 


Tsai. xxiii. 17. 


John xx. 28. 


See, for example, ch. i. 47, ii. 24, iv. 17, 18, v. 42, vi. 15, 61, 64, xiii. 11; compare 
xi. 4,15. It may be observed that in some instances, e. g. our Lord’s conversa- 
tion with Nicodemus, a remembrance of this characteristic will greatly assist us 
in understanding the true force of our Lord’s words. It would certainly seem, 
in a few cases, asif our Lord was not so much replying to the words of the 
speaker, as to the thoughts which He knew were rising up within. Compare 
Meyer, on Joh. iii. 3; Stier, Reden Jesu, Vol. iv. p. 876 sq. (Clark). 

1 Compare ch. iii. 16, 35 sq. v. 17 sq. vi. 57, viii. 42, x. 15, 80, xi. 42, al. It may 
be further observed that it is in St. John’s Gospel alone that we find the title 
povoyevns applied to the Eternal Son. See ch. i. 14, 18, iii. 16,18, and compare 
1 John iy. 9. 

2 In this Gospel our Lord is truly to us what the significant appellation of the 
inspired writer declares Him to be,—the Word. In the other Gospels our 
attention is mainly centred on our Lord’s acts, but in this last one he speaks. 
See Da Costa, Your Witnesses, Ὁ. 240. It may indeed be noticed as one of the 
striking features of this Gospel that it makes all its characters exhibit their 
individuality to us by what they say rather than by what they do. We may 
recognize this kind of self-portraiture partially in the case of Nathanael (ch. i. 
47 sq.) and Nicodemus (ch. iii. 1 sq.), and very distinctly in that of the woman 
of Samaria (ch. iii. 7 sq.) and of the man born blind (ch. ix. 1,39). The very 
enemies of our Lord appear similarly before us; all their doubts (ch. viii. 22), 
divisions (ch. x. 19), and machinations (ch. xi. 47) are disclosed to us as it were 
by themselves, and in the words that fell from their own lips. For some good 
remarks on the individualizing traits and characteristics of those who appear on 
the pages of St. John’s Gospel, see Luthardt, Das Johann. Evang, 111. 2, Part 
i. p. 98 sq. 

3 For some further notices and illustrations, see especially Luthardt, Das 


40 INTRODUCTORY CONSIDERATIONS ON ΤῊΣ Lecr.L 


conclusion call your attention to the mystical complete- 
ness which this Gospel gives to the evangelical history. 
I will only ask you to spend a moment’s thought on that 
everlasting wisdom by which it was fore-ordained that a 
Gospel should be vouchsafed to us in which the loftiest 
ideal purities and glories with which we might be able to 
invest the Son of David, the Son of God, and the Son of 
Man, might receive a yet loftier manifestation, and by 
which the more distinctly historical pictures disclosed to us ° 
by the synoptical Evangelists might be made instinct with 
a quickening life, which assuredly they lack not, but which 
we might never have completely realized if we had not 
been endowed with the blessed heritage of the Gospel of 
St. John." . 


Johann. Evang. 111. 2, p. 92 sq., and for comparisons between the pictures of 
our Redeemer as displayed to us in this and the three other Gospels, Lange, 
Leben Jesu, 1. 7.2, Vol. i. p. 271 sq. Compare also Da Costa, Four Witnesses, 
Ῥ. 286 sq. 

1 We may, perhaps, profitably close this comparison of the characteristics of the 
four Gospels with a brief statement of some of the distinctions which have either 
been above alluded to, or may be further adduced as evincing the clear individu- 
ality of each one of the inspired records. In regard of (1) the External features 
and characteristics, we are perhaps warranted in saying that (a) the point of view 
of the first Gospel is mainly Israelitic; of the second, Gentile; of the third, univer- 
sal; of the fourth, Christian ; —that(b) the general aspect and, so to speak, physi- 
ognomy of the first mainly is Oriental; of the second, Roman; of the third, Greek; 
of the fourth, spiritual ;—that (c) the style of the first is stately and rhythmical; 
of the second, terse and precise; of the third, calm and copious; of the fourth, 
artless and colloquial ;— that (d) the most striking characteristic of the first is 
symmetry; of the second, compression; of the third, order; of the fourth, sys- 
tem;—that(e) the thought and language of the first are both Hebraistic; of 
the third, both Hellenistic; while in the second the thought is often Occidental 
though the language is Hebraistic; and in the fourth the language Hellenistic, 
but the thought Hebraistic. Again (2), in respect of Subject-matter and con- 
tents we may say perhaps (q@), that in the first Gospel we have narrative; in the 
second, memoirs; in the third, history; in the fourth, dramatic portraiture ;— 
()) that in the first we have often the record of events in their accomplishment; 
in the second, events in their detail; in the third, events in their connection; in 
the fourth, events in relation to the teaching springing from them ;—that thus 
(c), in the first we more often meet with the notice of impressions; in the second, 
of facts; in the third, of motives; in the fourth, of words spoken;—and that, 
lastly (ὦ). the record of the first is mainly collective and often antithetical; of 
the second, graphic and circumstantial; of the third, didactic and reflective; 
of the fourth, selective and supplemental. We may (3), conclude by saying that 
in respect of the Portraiture of our Lord, the first Gospel presents Him to us 
mainly as the Messiah; the second, mainly as the God-man; the third, as the 


Lect.I. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 47 


And now I must close these meditations. Fain would 
I dwell on some more practical applications, but the re- 
membrance that these are lectures rather than 
sermons, and that the time is far spent, warns 
me to say no more. Yet I cannot part from you, my 
younger brethren, without simply yet lovingly urging you 
ere we again meet in this church to spend a brief hour in 
reviving your remembrance of the events in our Re- 
deemer’s history which conclude with the return of the 
Holy family to Nazareth, and precede the isolated notice 
of our Lord’s visit to the Temple when twelve years old; 
for thus far my next lecture will extend. I venture to 
suggest this, for I feel that you will thus be enabled to 
enter with a fresher interest into the meditations into 
which, with the help of Almighty God, I hope to lead you 
next Sunday afternoon. Yet withal remember, I beseech 
you, that this is no mere investigation of chronological 
difficulties, no dry matter of contested annals, but involves 
an effort to see and feel with more freshness and reality 
the significance of the recorded events in the earthly life of 
the Eternal Son. Remember that it implies a humble 
endeavor, by the grace of the inworking Spirit, to gain a 
more vital and personal interest in the inspired history of 
Him who stooped to wear the garments of our mortality, 
who submitted for our sakes to all the conditioning cir- 
cumstances of earthly life, was touched with a sense of 
our infirmities, yea, as an inspired writer has told us, was 
pleased to learn obedience “by the things 
that He suffered,” though himself the King 
of kings and Lord of lords, God blessed for ever ; Amen. 


Conclusion. 


Heb. v. 8. 


Redeemer; the fourth, as the only-begotten Son of God. For illustrations of 
this summary the reader may be referred to the Four Witnesses of Da Costa, to 
Davidson, Introduction to the N. T. Vol. i.; Lange, Leben Jesu, τ. 7. 2, Vol. i. 
p. 284—281; Ebrard, Kritik der Evang. Geschichte, § 10—89. 

1 For some excellent remarks on the unity of the Gospel history on the one 
hand, and its fourfold yet organically connected revelation of our Redeemer’s 
life and works on the other, see especially the eloquent and thoughtful work of 
Dr. Lange, already several times referred to, Das Leben Jesu, vit. 1, 2, Book i. 
p- 280 sq.—a work which we sincerely hope may ere long meet with a com 
petent translator. 


48 INTRODUCTORY CONSIDERATIONS. Lect. L 


Such a work, if regarded under such aspects, and with 
such remembrances, both is and must be blessed. Such 
contemplations, if engaged in with a humble and loving 
spirit, will add astrength to your faith, which, it may be, the 
storm and stress of coming life will never be able success- 
fully to weaken, and against which those doubts and diffi- 
culties which at times try the hearts of the young and 
inexperienced will be found both powerless and unpre- 
vailing. 

O, may the grace of our Redeemer be with you; 
may He quicken your young hearts; may He show unto 
you His glorious beauty; may His image grow in your 
souls; and both in you and in us all may His life-giving 
spirit enlighten the eyes of our understand- 
ing, and fill us, heart and soul and spirit, 
With all the fulness of God. 


Eph. i. 18. 


LECTURE II. 


THE BIRTH AND INFANCY OF OUR LORD. 


AND THE CHILD GREW, AND WAXED STRONG IN SPIRIT, FILLED WITH WIS* 
DOM : AND THE GRACE OF GOD WAS UPON HIM. — St. Luke ii. 40. 


THE text which I have just read, brethren, forms the 
concluding verse of that portion of the Evan- Ee gis 
gelical history to which, with God’s assisting of the present un- 
grace, I purpose directing your attention this Pe, ite 
afternoon. We may now be said to have fairly entered 
upon the solemn subject which I propose treating in these 
lectures ; and we shall do well at once to address ourselves 
to its discussion. And that, too, without any further pre- 
liminary matter, as I trust that my remarks last Sunday 
will have so far prepared us for the sound and reverential 
use of the four sources of our Redeemer’s history, that we 
need no longer delay in applying the principles which 
were there alluded to. 

I will pause only so far, to gather up the results of our 
foregoing meditations, as to remind you that, if our obser- 
vations on the general character and relations of the four 
inspired records were in any degree just and reasonable, it 
would certainly seem clear that our present endeavor to 
set forth a continuous and connected life of our Master 
must involve a constant recognition of two seemingly op- 
posite modes of proceeding. On the one hand, we must 
regard the four holy histories as to a great degree inde- 
pendent in their aims, objects, and general construction,— 
as marked by certain fore-ordered and _providentially- 
marked characteristics; and yet, on the other hand, we 
must not fail to observe that they stand in such relations 

ὄ 


δ0 THE BIRTH AND INFANCY Lect. II. 


to each other as may both sanction and justify our combin- 
ing them in a general delineation of the chief features of 
our Redeemer’s earthly life. While we may shrink from 
mere cold and sometimes forced harmonizing on this side, 
we must not, on that, so exaggerate seeming differences! as 
to plead exemption from the edifying task of comparing 
Scripture with Scripture? and of supplying from one 
inspired writer what another might have thought it meet 
to leave unnoticed or unexplained. Nay, more, we must 
not shrink from noting even seeming discrepancies,’ lest 
we fail to learn, by a more attentive consideration of them, 
how they commonly arise from our ignorance of some un- 
recorded relations, and how the seeming discord is due 
only to the Selahs and silences in the mingled strains of 
Evangelical harmony.* 


1 This, which Augustine (de Consensu Evang. τ. 7. 10) well calls “ palmare 
vanitatis,” has been far too much the tendency of modern commentators and 
essayists, especially in Germany. We may observe this not merely in the repul- 
sive productions of men like Strauss and his followers, but even in the com- 
mentaries of more sober and thoughtful writers. I may specify, for instance, 
the otherwise valuable commentary of Dr. Meyer. Here we have not only the 
fewest possible efforts to adjust or account for differences in the order of events 
in the Gospel history, but only too often a tendency to represent them greater 
than they really are found to be. Compare, for example, this writer’s objection- 
able remarks on Luke v. 1—11, Kommentar, p. 268. The results of the modern 
destructive school are stated fairly and clearly by Ebrard, Aritik der Evang. 
Gesch. § 114—118, p. 608. See especially p. 641. 

2 Some judicious remarks on the true Christian method of estimating, com- 
paring, and criticizing the inspired records of the four Evangelists, will be 
found in the introduction to Lange’s Leben Jesu. See especially Book 1. 4. 7, 
Vol. i. p. 141 sq. 

8 The duty of the critic in this respect is well stated by Dr. Lange in the work 
above referred to: ‘‘ The Evangelist,” he says, ‘‘ may certainly, nay, must appear 


to contradict himself; for the appearance of such contradiction is the mark of 
life, depth, and freshness. Nature appears a thousand times over to contradict 
herself. If acritic finds a difficulty in such an appearance of contradiction, 


and demands from the Gospels the precision of notaries, he clearly enough 
evinces his own incapability of forming a just estimate of them.” Leben Jesu, 
1.4.7, Vol. i. p. 144. See also some brief but good remarks on seeming dis- 
crepancies in the introduction to Chrysostom’s Homilies on St. Matt. τ. p. 5 
(ed. Bened.) 

4“ But if in recounting the wonders (of the Gospel history) all did not men- 
tion the same things, but one mentioned this set of incidents and another that, 
do not be disturbed thereby. For if one had related everything the rest would 
4mse been superfluous; or if all had written new and peculiar matter in refer 


Lecr. IL. OF OUR LORD. δῖ 


But let us delay no longer, for the subject before us is 
so extended that it will fully occupy all our 
time, and so varied that it will require some {,augenentorite 
adjustment. to adapt it to the prescribed 
limits of these lectures. 

As the present course of the Hulsean Lectures is limited 
in its duration to one year, and consequently will, at the 
very utmost, only afford me eight opportunities of address- 
ing you, it will perhaps be best to adopt the following 
divisions. In the present lecture we will consider the 
events of the Lord’s infancy. Next Sunday we will med- 
itate on the single recorded event of our Lord’s boyhood, 
and that portion of the history of His manhood which 
commences with His baptism and concludes with the mir- 
acle at the pool of Bethesda,—in a word, what may be 
roughly though conveniently termed our Lord’s early 
Judean ministry. A fourth and a fifth lecture may be 
devoted to the ministry in Galilee and the neighboring 
districts; a sixth may contain a brief account of the 
Lord’s last three journeys to or towards Jerusalem; a 
seventh may well be given exclusively to the events of the 
passover,— that period of such momentous interest, and 
so replete with difficulties of combination and arrange- 
ment ;— and a concluding lecture may embrace the history 
of the last forty days. 

In the present portion, if we leave out the commence- 
ment of St. John’s Gospel and the early history of the 
Baptist,” the first recorded event is of an importance 


ence to one another there would not have appeared the present evidence of 
agreement.’ — Chrysostom, ἐδ. p. 6. See further some judicious remarks in the 
introduction to The Four Witnesses of Da Costa, p. 1 sq. 

1 Owing to recent regulations, this number of Lectures has been finally reduced 
to six. The last two Lectures were thus not preached, but are added both for 
the sake of still maintaining some conformity to the will of the founder, and 
also for the sake of giving a necessary completeness to the subject. 

2 These portions of the inspired narrative are not commented on. The former 
belongs more to the province of dogmatical theology, the latter to the general 
history of our Lord’s times, into neither of which our present limits and the 
restricted nature of our subject will now permit us to enter. The student will 


δῶ THE BIRTH AND INFANCY 1801. II. 


that cannot be over-estimated, — that single event in the 
history of our race that bridges over the stu- 
The miracwous ~yendous chasm between God and man. That 


conception of our 


ΤῊ SYenE is the miraculous conception of 

our Redeemer. It is related to us both by 
the first and third Evangelists,” and by the latter with 
such an accuracy of detail, that we may bless God for 
having vouchsafed to us a record which, if reverently and 
attentively considered, will be found to suggest an answer 
to every question that might present itself to an honest 
though amazed spirit. Yea, and it 7s a subject for amaze- 
ment. Dull hearts there may be that have never cared 
to meditate deeply on these mysteries of our salvation, 
and to which the wonder and even perplexity of nobler 


find an elaborate and, in most respects, satisfactory article on the Baptist, in 
Winer, Realwérterb. Vol. i. p. 585—590; and some good comments on his minis- 
try in Greswell, Dissert. x1x. Vol. ii. p. 148 sq. 

1 Some good remarks on this profound subject will be found in Neander, Life 
of Christ, p.18 sq.(Bohn). The student will there find an able exposure of the 
mythical view, as it is called, of this sublime mystery, and brief but satisfactory 
answers to current objections. The main position of Neander is, that the mirac~- 
ulous conception was demanded ἃ priori, and confirmed ἃ posteriori. As regards 
any explanation of the special circumstances of this holy miracle, all that can be 
said has been said by Bp. Pearson, Creed, Art. 111. Vol. i. p. 203 (ed. Burton). See 
also Andrewes, Serm. 1x. Vol. i. p. 185 sq. (A.-C. Libr.). The dignity of the con- 
ception is well touched upon by Hilary, de Trinitate, Book τι. p. 17 (Paris, 1631). 

2 The objection founded on the assumed silence of St. John is wholly futile. 
If our view of St. John’s Gospel be correct (see above, p. 80), it may be fairly 
urged that a formal notice of an event which had been so fully related by one 
Evangelist and so distinctly confirmed by another would have seemed out of 
place in a Gospel so constructed as that of St. John. What we might have 
expected we meet with,—the fullest and most unquestioned statement of this 
divine truth (ch. i. 14, comp. ver. 18), nay more, reasoning which depends upon 
it (ch. iii. 6), but no historical details. See Neander, Life of Christ, p. 17, note 
(Bobn), and compare Da Costa, Four Witnesses, p. 286. The similarly assumed 
silence of St. Paul (Von Ammon, Gesch. des Lebens Jesu, τ. 4, Vol. i. p. 186) is 
abundantly confuted by Lange, Leben Jesu, τι. 2, 4, Vol. ii. pp. 72, 18. 

8 Well may Augustine say: ‘‘ Quid mirabilius virginis partu! concipit et virgo 
est; parit et virgo est. Creatus est de ea quam creayit: attulit ei fecunditatem, 
non corrupit ejus integritatem.”—Serm. CLXXXIx. 2, Vol. v. p. 1605 (ed. Migné). 
So, too, Gregory of Nazianzus, in a fine sermon on the nativity: Προελϑὼν δὲ 
Θεὸς μετὰ τῆς προσλήψεως ἕν ἐκ δύο τῶν ἐναντίων, σαρκὸς καὶ Πνεύματος" 
ὧν τὸ μὲν ἐδέωσε, τὸ δὲ ἐδεώϑε. Ἂ τῆς καινῆς μίξεως, ὦ τῆς παραδόξου 
κράσεως, 6 ὧν γίνεται, καὶ ὁ ἄκτιστος κτίζεται, καὶ ὃ ἀχώρητος χωρεῖται διὰ 
μέσης ψυχῆς νοερᾶς μεσιτευούσης ϑεότητι καὶ σαρκὸς παχύτητι. -- Oras. 
XXXVIII. p. 620 (ed. Morell). 


Lect. II. OF OUR LORD. 53 


spirits may have seemed unreasonable or inexplicable. 
Such there may be; but who of higher strain, as he sees 
and feels the infirmities with which he is encompassed, the 
weakness and frailty of that flesh with which he is clothed," 
the sinfulness that seems wound round every fibre, and 
knit up with every joint of his perishing body, — who has 
truly felt all this, and not found himself at times over- 
whelmed with the contemplation of the mystery of Em- 
manuel,?— the everlasting God manifested in, yea taber- 
nacling in, this very mortal flesh? Wild heathenism, we 
say, may have dreamed such dreams. The pagan of the 
West may have vaunted of his deified mortality and his 
brother men ascending to the gods; the pagan of the East 
may have fabled of his encarnalized divinities, and of his 
gods descending to men;* but this mystery of mysteries, 
that the Eternal Son of the Eternal Father, He whose 
out-goings had been from everlasting, whose hands had 
laid the bases of the hills and spread out the floods, that 
He should become incarnate, should take upon Him our 
nature and our infirmities,—can it be? Can such a 
thought have found an expression in prophecy?* Can it 


1“ What say you to flesh? is it meet God be manifested therein? ‘ Without 
controversy’ it isnot. Why, what is flesh? it is no mystery to tell what it is; it 
is dust, saith the patriarch Abraham. It is grass, saith the prophet Esay ; fenwm, 
‘grass cut down, and withering.’ It is ‘corruption,’ not corruptible, but even 
corruption itself, saith the Apostle Paul.... We cannot choose but hold this 
mystery for great, and say with Augustine, Deus; quid gloriosius? Caro; quid 
vilius? Deus in carne; quid mirabilius??? —Andrewes, Serm. III. Vol. i. p. 37 
(A.-C. Libr.). 

2 (0, the height and depth of this super-celestial mystery!” says the eloquent 
Bishop Hall, ‘that the infinite Deity and finite flesh should meet in one subject, 
yet so as the humanity should not be absorbed of the Godhead, nor the Godhead 
contracted by the humanity, but beth inseparably united; that the Godhead is 
not humanized, the humanity not deified, both are indivisibly conjoined; con- 
joined so as without confusion distinguished.”—Great Mystery of Godliness, § 2, 
Vol. viii. p. 332 (Oxf. 1837). Chrysostom has expressed very similar sentiments 
and with equal eloquence. See Hom. in Matt. 11. p. 21 (ed. Bened.). 

8 This thought is well expressed and expanded by Dr. Dorner in his valuable 
work on the Person of Christ, Vol. i. p. 4 sq. (ed. 2, 1845). 

4 The prophecies of the Old Testament relating to the miraculous conception, 
so often and so recklessly explained away or denied, will be found calmly and 
critically, though not in all respects satisfactorily, discussed by Hofmann, Schrift 
beweis, τι. 1. 5. 8, Vol. ii. p. 54—69. 


5* 


δά THE BIRTH AND INFANCY Lect. II. 


have become realized in history? Say,—can itbe? Can 
the world produce a narrative that can make such a con- 
ception imaginable? Is there a record that can make such 
an event seem credible, seem possible, we will not say to 
a doubting, but even to a receptive and to a trustful spirit ? 
Yea, verily, blessed be God, we have that narrative, and 
on that narrative, not only in its general outlines, but its 
most special details, we may rely with a confidence which 
every meditative reading will be found to enhance and to 
corroborate. 
Let us pause ἃ moment to consider a few of the more 
striking portions of the narrative, especially 
The narrativeof from the point of view in which we are for 


the conception con- 


sidered generally. the moment regarding it,— that of supplying 

the fullest conviction to every honest but 
anxious, every longing but inquiring, heart. Does the 
idealizing spirit that views the transcendent event in all 
the circumstances of its widest universality, — that seems 
to recognize the mysterious adaptations of earthly domin- 
ion,' to read the tokens of the fulness of the times, and 
to discern the longings pervading, not only the chosen 


1 The state of the world at the epoch when our Lord appeared was exactly that 
which, according to our mere human conceptions, might seem most fitted for the 
reception of Christianity. Judaism, on the one hand, had lost all those external 
glories and prerogatives which, at an earlier period, would have prevented any 
recognition of the Messiah, save as a national ruler and king. There would have 
been no Israel of God with chastened hearts and more spiritualized expectancies 
waiting, as we know they now were, for a truer redemption of Israel. Heathen- 
ism, on the other hand, had now gained by its contact with Judaism truer con- 
ceptions of the unity of God; and many a proselyte of the gate was there who, 
like the centurion of Capernaum (Luke vii. 5), loved well the nation that had 
taught him to kneel to the one God, and could bear to receive from that despised 
people a knowledge of his own and the world’s salvation. Compare Jost, Ges- 
chichte des Judenthums, 111.1, 4, Vol. i. p. 880, and Milman, Hist. of Christianity, 
ch. 1, Vol. i. p. 21sq. When we add to this the remembrance of the recent con- 
solidation of the power of Rome (see esp. Merivale, Hist. af Romans, ch. Xxx1x. 
Vol. iv. p. 883 sq.), and recognize a political centralization which could not but 
aid, however unwittingly and unwillingly, the pervasive influences of the new 
faith, we may well feel that the very appearance of Christianity, at the time when 
it did appear, is in itself an indirect evidence of its divine nature and truth. See 
some good remarks on this subject in Lange, Leben Jesu, 11.1.1, p. 15 sq. ; and 
for a fairly candid statement of the relations of Judaism to Christianity, the 
learned work of Jost, Geschichte des Judenthums, 111. 8. 11, Vol. i. p. 894 sq. 


- 


Lecr. II. OF OUR LORD. 55 


people, but the whole wide realms of the Eastern world,?— 
does such a spirit, meditating thus loftily and perchance 
blamelessly upon the mighty coincidences of time and 
place and history, seek in vain for some features in the 
record of the incarnation of the Son of God that shall 
respond to such feelings? Does not the 


direct message from Jehovah, the angelic Luke i. 26. 
ministration, the operative influence of the Luke i. 48. 
Eternal Spirit, all tend to work a conviction Luke i. 38. 


that to the receptive heart becomes of inex- 

pressible strength?® Or again, to the more humble and 
meek spirit, that seeks only by the holy leadings of simple 
narrative to gain for itself a saving knowledge of the his- 
tory of its own salvation, is there not here disclosed, in 
the many notices of the purely human and outward rela- 
tions of those whom the opening of the Gospel brings be- 
fore us, those artless traits of historic truth that on some 
minds work such a fulness of conviction? Yes, let us 
take the very objections of adversaries or sceptics, and see 
in this portion of St. Luke’s Gospel the more direct agen- 
cies of the spiritual world, and in the short notice of St. 


1The gradual development of this feeling, and the circumstances which 
helped to promote it, are well noticed by Ewald, Geschichte Christus’, pp. 
55—96. 

2 It has been recently considered doubtful whether the well-known passages 
from Tacitus (Hist. v.18) and Suetonius (Vespas. 4) relating to the feeling that 
pervaded the whole Eastern world, and the attention that was directed to 
Juda, may not have been imitated from Josephus (Bell. Jud. vit. 5, 4). See 
Neander, Life of Christ, p. 28, note (Bohn), and compare Whiston, Dissert. 111., 
appended to his translation of Josephus, esp. Vol. iii. p. 612 (Oxford, 1839). Such 
an imitation does not seem clearly made out; still, even if in part we concede it, 
we have only thus far weakened the testimony from without as to consider it an 
acceptance of a statement made from within, because that statement was felt to 
be correct. 

3 “ Our own idea of Christ compels us to admit that two factors, the one natu- 
ral, the other supernatural, were coefficient in His entrance into human life; 
and this, too, although we may be unable, ἃ priori, to state how that entrance 
was accomplished. But at this point the historical accounts come to our aid, by 
testifying that what our theory of the case requires, did in fact occur.” — Nean. 
der, Life of Christ, p. 13 (Bohn), —a loose, but substantially correct representa 
tion of the original (Leben Jesu Christi, p. 15). Compare Bp. Taylor, Life of 
Christ, τ. ad sect. 1. 4, Vol. i. p. 28 (Lond. 1886). 


56 THE BIRTH AND INFANCY Lect. IL. 


Matthew’s Gospel their more mediate workings,’— let us. 
accept the statement, and see in it only one more proof, if 
proof be needed, of the diverse forms in which Evangeli- 
cal Truth is presented to the receptive mind, let us recog- 
nize in it only one more example of the varied aspects of 
the manifold wisdom of God. 
Let us now substantiate the foregoing remarks by a 
ee ee brief notice of the details of the inspired 
ene POR en ati 
What a vivid truth, speaking humanly, 
there is in the narrative of St. Luke! With what a mar- 
vellous aptitude to human infirmity do things, divine and 
human, mingle with each other in ever illustrative and ever 
confirmatory combinations. With what striking persua- 
siveness do mysteries seemingly beyond the grasp of 
thought blend lovingly with the simplest elements, and 
become realizable by the teachings of the homely relations 
of humble and sequestered life. With what a noble yet 
circumstantial simplicity — a simplicity that in the lan- 
guage, no less than in the facts related, bewrays the record 
of her who saw and believed *—1is the opening story told 


1 See, for example, Von Ammon, Gesch. des Lebens Jesu, 1. 5, Vol. i. p. 194. 
We do not in these lectures notice, nor do we consider it either useful or edify- 
ing to notice, the repulsive opinions of writers like Strauss (Leben Jesu), Weisse 
(die Evang. Geschichte), or Gfrérer (Geschichte des Urchristenthum): their gen- 
eral tendencies are so simply destructive, their unhappy criticisms so almost 
judicially infatuated, and their progressions in doubt and denials (see Ebrard, 
Kritik der Ev. Baber! § 6, 7) such melancholy instances of a very uedodela 
πλάνης (Eph. iv. 14), that we may well leave them to themselves, and to their 
own mutual confutations. Writers of the character of the one above alluded 
to may, however, sometimes be profitably referred to, as evincing, as Von 
Ammon especially does in respect of this narrative (see pp. 190, 191), what an 
hmount of unhappy efort it takes to resist the impression of its vital truth 
which the evangelical history makes upon doubting minds that will consent to 
se reasonable and candid. 

2 See Lange, Leben Jesu, 11. 2. 6, Vol. ii. p. 93. We can, perhaps, hardly go so 
far with this able writer as positively to find in the recital of the events a diction 
that belongs rather toa woman than to a man; but when we mark the speci- 
alities of the narrative, the preservation of the exact expressions of the sacred 
eanticles, and, above all, the tone of artless reality which pervades the whole, 
we seem perfectly justified in believing that we have here, partly perhaps in 
substance, partly in precise terms, a record that came to St. Luke, mediately or 


Lecr. IL OF OUR LORD. 57 


of man’s redemption! The angel Gabriel, he who stood 
among the highest of the angelic hierarchy, and whose 
ministrations, if it be not too bold a thing to affirm, appear 
to have been specially Messianic, just as those of Raphael 
might have pertained to individual need, and those of 
Michael to judicial power,'—that blessed Spirit, who a few 
months before had been sent to ammounce the future birth 
of the forerunner, is now sent from God to a 
rude and lone village in the hills of Galilee, 
— Nazareth the disesteemed,’ and to a betrothed virgin,® 
whose name was Mary. Of the early history of that 
highly favored one we know nothing. Yet, without bor- 
rowing one thought from the legendary notices of apocry- 
phal narrative,* it does not seem a baseless fancy to recog- 
nize in her one of those pure spirits that in seclusion and 
loneliness were looking and longing for the theocratic King, 


Luke i. 11. 


immediately, from the lips of the Virgin herself,— her Son’s first evangelist. 
And with such a belief the peculiarities of the diction seem fully to coincide. 
While throughout we can trace the hand of St. Luke (see esp. Gersdorf, Beitrage, 
p. 160 sq.), we can also see in the transition from the studied dedication to the 
simple structure of the ancient Scriptures just that change which a faithful 
incorporation of the recital of another would be certain to introduce. Compare 
Mill, on Pantheistic Principles, Part τι. p. 23 sq. 

1 This remark (valeat quantum) is due to Lange (Leben Jesu, 11. 2. 2, Vol. ii. 
p. 46), whose whole chapter on the subject of angelic ministrations deserves 
perusal. For further references on the nature of angels, see notes on Eph. i. 21; 
and for a most able confutation of the arguments against this portion of the 
sacred narrative, founded on angelic appearances, Mill, Obss. on Pantheistic 
Principles, Part 11. 4, p. 52 sq. 

2 See Stanley, Palestine, chap. x. 1, p. 361 (ed. 2), and compare John i. 46, and 
the notes of Meyer im loc. The savage act recorded by St. Luke (ch. iv. 29) isa 
good commentary on the meaning of Nathanael’s question. For an interesting 
description of Nazareth, especially considered with reference to the Gospel his- 
tory, see Robinson, Palestine, Vol. ii. p. 333 sq. (ed. 2). . 

3 «850 it was that the Virgin was betrothed, lest honorable marriage might be 
disreputed, and seem inglorious, by a positive rejection from any participation 
in the honor.” — Taylor, Life of Christ, 1, ad sect. 1. 6, Vol. i. p. 29 (Lond. 1836). 
Other, and some of them singular, reasons are assigned by the older writers. 
See Spanheim, Dub. Evang. Part τ. p. 116. The use of the word μεμνηστευμενην 
is investigated with much learning by Bynzus, de Natali Jes. Chr. X. p. 28 sq. 

4 The history of the Virgin is told at great length in the Protevangelium of 
James, and in the so-called Gospels de Ortwu (Pseudo-Matt.) and de Nativitate 
Marie. See Tischendorf, Evang. Apocrypha (Lips. 1853); and for a connected 
history formed out of these apocryphal writings, the laborious work of Hof- 
mann (R), das Leben Jesu nach den Apocryphen (Leipz. 1851). 


δ THE BIRTH AND INFANCY Lecr. II. 


and that, deeply imbued, as we see the Virgin must have 
been, both with the letter and with the spirit of the Old 
Testament, were awaiting the evolution of 
the highest of all its transcendent prophecies. 
Rapt as such a one might well have been in devotion, or in 
Messianic meditation,’ she sees before her, at no legendary 
spring-side,? but, as the words of the Evangelist seem 
rather to imply, in her own humble abode, 
the divinely-sent messenger, and hears a salu- 
tation which, expressed in the terms in which it was 
expressed, “Hail, highly favored one! the 
Lord is with thee,” and coming as it did from 
an angel’s lips, must well have troubled that meek spirit 
and cast it into awe and perplexity.’ 
What persuasive truth there is in the nature of the 
terms in which the announcement is con- 
αἰεί veyed. To that highly favored one, that per- 
chance had long communed in stillness on 
the prophecies of the Messianic kingdom, to her is Jesus 
the Son of the Highest portrayed in that form, which, par- 
tially Israelitic in general outline, yet Christian in essence,* 


Luke i. 46—55. 


Luke i. 28. 


Tuke i. 28. 


1 Bp. Taylor censures any speculation of this kind; but it seems, to say the 
least, harmless, and not inconsistent with the meditative spirit which reveals 
itself in the Virgin’s inspired canticle. Bengel hints at the time as evening, 
comparing Dan. ix. 21. 

2 Compare Protevang. cap. 11, Hist. de Nat. Maria, cap. 9, and compare Hof- 
mann, Leben Jesu, p. 74. The expressions of inspired narrative (ver. 28) seem 
in this particular to justify the statement made in Suidas s. v. ᾿Ιησοῦς, where the 
Virgin is related as specifying, —€loeAdav ἐν ᾧ ἤμην οἰκήματι. The spring in 
question is alluded to and briefly described by Stanley, Palestine, p. 3862 (ed. 2). 

8 The addition of the participle ἰδοῦσα in the received text, though not with- 
out great external support (see Tischendorf in loc.), must still be considered as 
somewhat doubtful. Even if retained, we may perhaps more naturally refer the 
troubled feelings of the Virgin simply to the terms in which the salutation was 
couched: observe the specific ἐπὶ τῷ λόγῳ, and the concluding clause, καὶ 
διελογίζετο ποταπὸς εἴη ἀσπασμὸς ovToS. 

4 We seem to recognize this distinction in the expressions of ver. 88. ---ἸΤ , on 
the one hand, the heavenly messenger declares, in continuation of the image at 
the concluding part of the former verse, that the Eternal Son “ shall reign over 
the house of Jacob for ever;” he, on the other hand, seems to imply, by the very 
seeming repetition, “‘ And of His kingdom there shall be no end,” a reference to 
a still more universal dominion, Comp. Dan. vii. 14, and see Bynzus, de Natalé 

« Jes. Chr, XXXVI. p. 117 sq. 


‘Lect. IL. OF OUR LORD. 59 


must have begun to work in her the most lively conviction. 
Yet how characteristic is the question,“How |. 4, 
shall this be?” the question not of outwardly πτωχοὶ 18. 
expressed doubt, like that of Zacharias, or of δι. avii.17. 
an inwardly felt sense of impossibility, like — en. aviii.12. 
that of Abraham and Sarah in the old and typical past, 
but of a childlike innocence, that sought to realize to itself, 
in the very face of seeming impossibilities, the full assurance 
of its own blessedness. No, there was no lack of real faith 
in that question." It was a question to which the heavenly 
messenger was permitted to return a most explicit answer, 
and to confirm by a most notable example, even that of her 
kinswoman Elisabeth, that with God no word 
was impossible,,—no promise that was not 
to receive its completest and most literal fulfilment. 
With these words of the angel all seems to have become 
clear to her in regard of the wonder-working power of 
God; much, too, must have already seemed clear to her on 
the side of man. With the rapid fore-glance of thought, 
she must have seen in the clouded future, scorn, dereliction, 
the pointed finger of a mocking and uncharitable world, 
calumny, shame, death. But what was a world’s scorn, or 


Luke i. 87. 


1 The utmost that can be said is that the Virgin felt the seeming impossibility, 
and that in avowing the feeling she sought for that further assurance which she 
also felt would not be withheld, and would at once allay her doubts. Even the 
following excellent remarks of Jackson attribute to the Virgin somewhat more 
mistrust than the words and the case seem to imply: “Τῷ is far from my dispo- 
sition at any time, or my purpose at this, to urge further to aggravate the 
infirmity of a vessel so sanctified, elect, and precious: and I am persuaded the 
Evangelist did not so much intend to disparage hers, as to confirm our belief, 
by relating her doubtful question, and the angel’s reply; the one being but 
Sarah’s mistrust, refined with maidenly modesty, the other Sarah’s check, miti- 
gated and qualified by the angel.’?— Creed, Book vit. 1. 12, Vol. vi. p. 209 (Oxf. 
1844). The earlier commentators, though perhaps they slightly overpress the 
πῶς in the Virgin’s question (ἐπιζητοῦσα τὸν τρόπον τοῦ πράγματος, Theoph.), 
have in most cases rightly appreciated the true state of feeling which prompted 
the question. Comp. Lange, Leben Jesu, 11. 2, 8, Vol. ii. p. 66 

2 It is usual to consider ῥῆμα in this text as coextensive in meaning with the 
Hebrew 727, and as implying “‘ thing,” ‘‘ matter” (Wordsworth, in Joc.). This 
is now rightly called in question by the most accurate interpreters; the meaning 
is simply as stated by Euthymius,—7av ὃ λέγει, πᾶν ὃ ἐπαγγέλεται. See 
Meyer, Komment. tiber Luk., Ὁ. 208. 


00 THE BIRTH AND INFANCY Lect. II. 


a world’s persecution, to those words of promise? Faith 
sustains that possible shrinking from more than mortal trial, 
and turns it into meekest resignation: “ Behold the hand- 
maid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word.” 
From that hour the blessed Virgin seems ever to appear 
before us in that character, which the notices of the Gos- 
pels so consistently adumbrate,! meek and pensive, medita- 
tive and resigned, blessed with joys no tongue can tell, and 
yet, even in the first hours of her blessedness, beginning to 
feel one edge of the sword that was to pierce 
through her loving and submissive heart. 
The last words of the miraculous message seem to pre- 
pare us for the next event recorded by the 
Fignuttincn, Hvangelist,—the hasty journey of the Vir- 
gin to her aged relative Elisabeth,’ in the hill- 
country of Judza: “and Mary arose and went into the 
hill-country, with haste, unto a city of Juda.” 
But why this haste? Why this lengthened, 
and, as far as we can infer from national custom,’ unusual 
journey in the case of a young and secluded maiden? Are 
we to believe, with a recent and eloquent writer of a life of 


Luke ii. 35. 


Luke i. 39. 


1 The character of the blessed Virgin, as far as it can be inferred from the 
Scriptures, has been touched upon by Niemeyer, Character, Vol. i. p. 54 sq. 
Some thoughtful notices, as derived from St. John’s Gospel, will be found in 
Luthardt, das Johann. Evang. Vol. i. p. 114 sq. 

2 It seems impossible to state confidently the nature of this relationship. It 
has been thought possible that the Virgin may have been of the tribe of Levi, 
and thus connected with Elisabeth, who we know was of that tribe; so the 
apocryphal document called the Testamentum xii. Patrwm, ὃ 2,7, and Faustus 
Manicheus, as referred to by Augustine, contra Faust. Manich. xx111. 9, Vol. 
viii. p. 471 (ed. Migné). The more probable opinion is, that the Virgin was of 
the tribe of Judah, and that the relationship with Elisabeth arose from some 
intermarriage. Such intermarriages between members of the tribe of Levi and 
members of other tribes can be shown to have occurred in earlier periods of 
sacred history (comp. 2 Chron. xxii. 11); and in these Jater periods might have 
been far from uncommon. See Bynzus, de Natali Chr. τ. 1. 47, p. 141; and 
comp. Mishna, Tract, “ Kiddushin,” rv. 1 sq. Vol. iii. p. 878 sq. (ed. Surenhus.). 

8 Passages have been cited from Philo, de Legg. Spec. 111. 81, Vol. i. p 827 (ed. 
Mangey), and Talm. Hieros. Tract, ‘‘ Chetuboth,” vir. 6, which would seem to 
imply that such journeys in the case of virgins were contrary to general custom. 
“The journey,” says Lange, “was not quite in accordance with Old-Testament 
decorum; the deep realities of the cross, however, give a freedom in the spirit of 
the New.” — Leben Jesu, Vol. ii. p. 85. 


Lect. IL. OF OUR LORD. 61 


our Lord, that it was in consequence of a communication 
on the part of the Virgin, and a subsequent rejection on the 
part of Joseph?* Are we to do such a wrong to both our 
Lord’s earthly parents? Are we to make that righteous son 
of Jacob the first Ebionite? Are we to believe that the 
blessed Virgin thus strangely threw off that holy and pen- 
sive reserve, which, as I have remarked, seems her charac- 
teristic throughout the Gospel history? It cannot be. That 
visit was not to receive consolation for wrong and unkind- 
ness from man, but to confer with a wise heart on trans- 
cendent blessings from God, which the unaided spirit even 
of Mary of Nazareth might not at first be able completely 
to grasp and to realize. And to whom could she go so nat- 
urally as to one toward whom the wonder-working power 
of God had been so signally displayed. Nay, does not the 
allusion to her “kinswoman Elisabeth,” in the 
angel’s concluding words, suggest the very 
quarter to which she was to turn for further spiritual support, 
and for yet more accumulated verification? To her, then, the 
Virgin at once hastens. A few days? would bring the un- 
looked-for visitant to the “city of Juda,” — 
whether the nearer village which tradition 
still points to as the home of Zacharias and Elisabeth,’ or 


Luke i. 36. 


Luke i. 39. 


1See Lange, Leben Jesu, 1. 2. 5, Vol. ii. p. 84 sq.; fully and satisfactorily 
answered by Ebrard, Kritik der Ev. Gesch. § 45, Ὁ. 214sq. There seems no sufli- 
cient reason for placing, with Alford and others, what is recorded in Matt. i. 
18—25 before this journey. The discovery noticed in Matt.i.18 (edpédn δὲ 
εἶπε διὰ τὸ ἀπροσδόκητον. Euthym.), and the events which followed, would seem 
much more naturally to have taken place after the Virgin’s return. So rightly 
August. de Consensu Evang. τι. 17, Vol. iii. p. 1081 (ed. Migné). Comp. Tischen- 
dorf, Synops. Evang. p. Xxi. 

2 If Hebron (see below) be considered the Virgin’s destination, the distance 
could not have been much short of 100 English miles, and would probably have 
taken at least four days. We learn from Dr. Robinson’s Jtinerary that the time 
from Hebron to Jerusalem, with camels, was in his case 8h. 15m., and from Jeru- 
salem to Nazareth, with mules, 29h. 45m. The rate of travelling with the former 
is estimated at about two geographical miles an hour, and with the later some- 
what less than three. See Robinson’s Palestine, Vol. ii. pp. 568, 574 (ed. 2). A 
learned dissertation on the rate of a day’s journey will be found in Greswell, 
Dissertations, Vol. iv. p. 525 sq. (ed. 2). | 

3 Now called Ain Karim, and a short distance from Jerusalem. Its claims are 
strongly supported by Dr. Thomson in his excellent work, The Land and the 


6 


62 THE BIRTH AND INFANCY Lect. It. 


the more remote town of Juta, or perhaps, more probably, 
ancient and priestly Hebron,’ which Jewish tradition has 
fixed upon as the birth-place of the last and greatest scion 
of the old dispensation.’ There she finds, and there, as St. 
Luke especially notices, she salutes, the future 
mother of the Baptist. That salutation, per- 
chance, was of a nature that served, under the inspiration 
of the Spirit, in a moment to convey all. Elisabeth, yea, 
and the son of Elisabeth, felt the deep significance of that 
greetings The aged matron at once breaks forth into a 
mysterious welcome of holy joy, and with a 
loud voice, the voice of loftiest spiritual exal- 
tation, she blesses the chosen one who had 
come under the shadow of her roof, adding that reassur- 
ance which seems to supply us with the clew to the right 
understanding of the whole, “and blessed is she that be- 
lieved: for there shall be a performance of 
those things which were told her from the 
Lord.” 

We need not pause on this inspired greeting, and on the 


Luke i. 40. 


Ver. 42. 


Ver. 42. 


Ver. 45. 


Book (Vol. ii. p. 537), and seem to rest mainly on the concurrent traditions of the 
Greek and Latin Churches. See, however, below, note 2. 

1 This last supposition, which is that of Grotius, Lightfoot, and others, is per- 
haps slightly the most probable, as Hebron appears to have been preéminently 
one of the cities of the Priests. See Josh. ΧΧΙ. 11, and comp. Lightfoot, Hor. 
Hebr. on Luke i. 89, Vol. ii. p. 886 (Lond. 1684). The second supposition is due to 
Reland, (Palest. p. 870), and is adopted by Robinson (Palestine, Vol. ii. p. 206, 
ed. 2), who identifies it with the modern Yitta. The supposition that Ἰούδα is, 
only a corrupted form, by a softer pronunciation, of ἸἸούτα (Reland), is highly 
questionable; no trace of such a reading occurs in any of the ancient manu- 
scripts. 

2 See Otho, Lex. Rabbin. p. 824, and compare Joshua xxi. 11, where Hebron is 
specially defined as being ‘‘in the hill-country of Judah.” This general defini- 
tion of locality is perhaps ‘slightly less suitable to the first-mentioned place, Ain 
Karim, which, though in the uplands of Judea, is scarcely in that part which 
seems commonly to have been known as ‘the hill-country.” Sepp (Leben Chr. 
Vol. ii. p. 8) cites Talm. Hieros. ‘‘ Schevith,” fol. 88, 4, —‘‘ Quodnam est monta- 
num Judxe? mons regalis.” 

3 It has been well, though perhaps somewhat fancifully said by Euthymius: 
Ὁ μὲν Χριστὸς ἐφϑέγξατο διὰ τοῦ στόματος τῆς ἰδίας μητρός" 6 δὲ ᾿Ιωάννης 
ἤκουσε διὰ τῶν ὥτων τῆς οἰκείας μητρός, καὶ ἐπιγνοὺς ὑπερφυῶς τὸν ἑαυτοῦ 
δεσπότην ἀνεκήρυξεν αὐτὸν τῷ σκιρτήματι. --- Comment. in Luc. τ. 41. 


Lecr. I. OF OUR LORD. 63 


exalted hymn of praise uttered in response by the Virgin, 
save to protest against the discreditable, and, phaser 
to use the mildest term, the unreasonable ress of the two in- 
attempts that have been made to throw ee a 

doubt on the credibility of the sacred narrative, by ap- 
pealing to the improbability of these so-called lyrical effu- 
sions! on the part of Mary and Elisabeth. Lyrical 
effusions! What! are we to say that this strange and un- 
looked-for meeting on the part of the mother of the Fore- 
runner and the mother of the Redeemer was as common- 
place and prosaic as that of any two matrons of Israel 
that might have met unexpectedly under the terebinths? 
of Hebron? Are we so utterly to believe in those wretched 
Epicurean views of the history of our race, as to conceive 
it possible that the greatest events connected with it were 
unmarked by all circumstances of higher spiritual exalta- 
tion? If there be only that grain of truth in the Evangeli- 
cal history that our adversaries may be disposed to concede ; 
if there be any truth in those ordinary psychological laws, 
to which, when it serves their purpose, they are not slow 
to appeal; then, beyond all doubt, both Elisabeth and the 
Virgin could not be imagined to have met in any way less 
striking than that which is recorded ; their words of greet- 
ing could have been none other than those we find assigned 
to them by the Evangelist.2 Every accent in the saluta- 
tion of the elder matron is true to the principles of our 
common nature when subjected to the highest influences; 


1 Compare Schleiermacher, Essay on St. Luke, Ὁ. 24; well and completely 
answered by Dr. Mill in his admirable comments on these inspired hymns. See 
Observations on Pantheistie Principles, Part τι. 3, p. 39 sq. 

2 Kitto, Cycl. s. v. ‘‘ Alah.” 

3 “ Such a vision of coming power and light and majesty as these hymns indi- 
cate, — a picture so vivid as to the blessedness of the approaching reign, so indis- 
tinct and void as to the means by which that blessedness was to be realized, —in 
which, while the view of faith is so concentred on the Source of salvation, then 
initially manifested the whole detail of His acts and the particulars of His 
redemption continue closely wrapped up in the figure and symbol which repre- 
sented them in the ancient dispensation, —such a vision could belong only to 
the particular position assigned to it, in the boundary of the old and new cove- 
nants.” — Mill, Observations, Part τι. 3, p. 81. 


64 THE BIRTH AND INFANCY Lect. II. 


every cadence of the Virgin’s hymn is in most life-like 
accordance with all we know of the speaker, and with all 
we can imagine of the circumstances of this momentous 
meeting. O no, let us not hesitate to express our 
deepest and heartiest conviction that the words we have 
here are no collection of Scriptural phrases, no artful com- 
position of an imaginative or credulous writer, but the 
very words that fell from the lips of Mary of Nazareth,— 
words which the rapture of the moment and the inspiration 
of the Holy Ghost alike called forth, and alike imprinted 
indelibly on the memory both of her that spake and her 
that listened All speaks truth, life, and reality. On the 
one hand, the diction of the Old Testament that pervades 
this sublime canticle, —the reminiscences perchance of the 
hymn of Hannah, type of her who spake; on the other 
hand, the conscious allusions to mysterious blessings that 
Hannah never knew,—all place before us, as in a por- 
traiture of most living truth, the rapt maiden of Nazareth, 
pouring forth her stored-up memories of history and 
prophecy in one full stream of Messianic joyfulness and 
praise. 
After a few months’ sojourn with Elisabeth the Virgin 
eects returns,” and then, or soon after it, came the 
ον trial of faith to the righteous Joseph. This 
St. Matthew relates to us briefly, but with 
some suggestive and characteristic marks of living truth 
to which we may for a moment advert. 


1 Even without specially ascribing to the Virgin, as indeed we fairly might do, 
that spiritually-strengthened power of recollection which was promised to the 
Apostles of her Son (John xiv. 26), we may justly remind our opponents that the 
rhythmical character of these canticles would infallibly impress them on the 
minds of both the speakers with all that peculiar force and vividness which, we 
must often observe, metre does in our own cases. Comp. Mill, Observations, p. 42. 

2 It has been doubted whether the notices of time may not lead us to suppose 
that the Virgin staid with Elisabeth till the birth of the Baptist, and that St. 
Luke has specified the return of the Virgin, in the place he has done, merely ta 
connect closely the notices of her journey and her return. See Wieseler, Chron. 
Synops. 1.8, p.151. There is some plausibility in the supposition; but, on the 
whole, it seems more natural to conceive that the events took place in the order 
in which they are described. Comp. Greswell, Prolegomena, Cap. IV. Ρ. 178. 


Lecr. II. OF OUR LORD. 65 


How very striking is the fact that, while to the Virgin 
the heavenly communication is made directly 
by an angel, the communication to the handi- μὴ οὐπευνὴῤ κι τ 
craftsman of Galilee? 15 made by means of a 
dream of the night. How suggestive is it Matt. i. 20. 
that, while to the loftier spirit of Mary the 
name of Jesus is revealed with all the prophetic associa- 
tions of more than David’s glories, to Joseph, perchance 
the aged Joseph,? who might have long seen and realized 
his own spiritual needs, and the needs of those around 
him, it is specially said, “thou shalt call his name Jesus; 
for He shall save His people from their 
sins.” Surely, brethren, such things cannot 
be cunningly devised; such things must work, and ought 
to work, conviction; such things must needs make us feel, 
and feel with truth, that this and the following holy chap- 
ters, so carped at by the doubting spirits both of earlier 
and of later days, are verily what the Church has ever 
held them to be,—the special, direct, and undoubted reve- 
lations of the Eternal Spirit of God? 


Ver. 21. 


1 Chrysostom notices the different nature of the heavenly communications, 
assigning however what scarcely seems the true reason, —the faith of Joseph 
(πιστὸς ἣν ὃ ἀνήρ, καὶ οὐκ ἐδεῖτο THs ὄψεως TavTHS). If we may venture to 
assign a reason, it would rather seem referable, first, to the difference of the sub- 
jects of the two revelations, — that to the Virgin needing the most distinct exter- 
nal attestation (Euthym.); secondly, to some difference in the respective natures 
of Joseph and Mary, and in their powers of receiving and appreciating divine 
communications. Comp. Lange, Leben Jesu, 11. 2, 5, Vol. ii. p. 89. 

2 Without referring to the apocryphal writers, or seeking to specify with the 
exactness of Epiphanius (πρεσβύτης ὀγδοήκοντα ἐτῶν πλείω ἢ ἐλάσσω, Her. 
LI. 10), it may perhaps be said that such seems to have been the prevailing opin- 
ion of the early Church. That he died in the lifetime of our Lord has been 
justly inferred from the absence of his name in those passages in the Gospels 
where allusion is made to the Virgin and the Lord’s brethren. See Blunt, 
Veracity of Evangelists, § 8, Ὁ. 88; and for notices and reff. as to the supposed 
age of Joseph at our Lord’s birth, see the curious but often very instructive 
work of Hofmann, Leben Jesu nach den Apocryphen, § 10, p. 62. 

3 It is painful to notice the hardihood with which the genuineness of these 
chapters has been called in question, even by some of the better class of critics. 
See, for example, Norton, Genwineness of Gospels, Note A, § 5, Vol. i. p. 204 sq. 
When we remember (1) that they are contained in every manuscript, uncial or 
cursive, and in every version, eastern or western, that most of the early Fathers 
cite them, and that early enemies of Christianity appealed to them (Orig. Cels. I. 


6* 


66 THE BIRTH AND INFANCY Lect. IL 


And now the fulness of time was come. By one of 
those mysterious workings whereby God 

Journey to Beth- ΝΕ ϑ' s 
lehem, and taxing Makes the very worldliness of man bring 
muler Car" about the completion of His own heavenly 
counsels, the provincial taxing or enrolment of the per- 
sons or estates? of all that were under the Roman sway,— 
a taxing almost proved by independent his- 
torical induction to have been made even as 
St. Luke relates it, during the presidency of Cyrenius?— 


Luke ti. 2. 


88, 11. 82); when we observe (2) the obvious connection between the beginning 
of ch. iii. and the end of ch. ii-, and between ch. iv. 18 and ii. 28: and when 
we remark (8) the exact accordance of diction with that of the remaining chap. 
ters of the Gospel, —it becomes almost astonishing that even ἃ priori prejudice 
should not have abstained at any rate from so hopeless a course as that of 
impugning the genuineness of these chapters. To urge that these chapters were 
wanting in the mutilated and falsified gospel of the Ebionites (Epiph. Her. xxx. 
13), or that they were cut away by the heretical Tatian (Theodoret, Her. Fab. 1. 
20), is really to concede their genuineness, and to bewray the reason why it was 
impugned. For additional notices and arguments, see Griesbach, Epimetron ad 
Comment. Crit. p. 47 sq.; Gersdorf, Beitrage, p. 38; and Patritius, de Hvangeliis, 
Quest. virI. Vol. i. p. 29 sq. 

1 This’ point is so doubtful and debatable that I prefer adopting this more 
general form of expression. Compare Wieseler, Chron. Synops. 1. 2, p. 75 sq., 
and Greswell, Dissert. No. X1v. Vol. i. p. 541 sq. On the general lexical distine- 
tion between ἀπογραφὴ and ἀποτίμησις no great reliance can be placed: in 
Joseph. Ant. XVII. 13. 5, xv. 1.1, the words appear used interchangeably. See 
Wieseler, J. c., and Meyer in loc. This much may perhaps be said, that if it was 
at first only an enrolment per capita, it was one that had, and perhaps was per: 
fectly well known to have, a prospective reference to property. 

2 Without entering at length into this vexed question, we may remark, for the 
benefit of the general reader, that the simple and grammatical meaning of the 
words, as they appear in all the best MSS. [B. alone omits ἢ before ἀπογραφή], 
must be this: “this taxing took place as a first one while Cyrenius was gov- 
ernor of Syria;” and that the difficulty is to reconcile this with the assertion of 
Tertullian (contr. Marc. 1v. 19), that the taxing took place under Sentius Satur- 
ninus, and with the apparent historical fact that Quirinus did not become Presi- 
dent of Syria till nine or ten years afterwards. See the Cenotaphia Pisana of 
Cardinal Norisius, Dissert. 11., and the authorities in Greswell, Dissertations, No. 
xIV. Vol. i. p. 466 sq. (ed. 2). There are apparently only two sound modes of 
explaining the apparent contradiction (I dismiss the mode of regarding πρώτη 
as equivalent to προτέρα as forced and artificial), either by supposing, (a) that 
ἡγεμονεύοντος is to be taken ina general and not a special sense, and to imply 
the duties of a commissioner extraordinary,—a view perhaps best and most 
ably advocated by the Abbé Sanclemente, de Vulg. dire. Dionys. Emend. Book 
Iv. ch. 2, but open to the objection arising from the special and localizing term 
τῆς Συρίας (see Meyer, Komment. itber Luk. p. 221); or by supposing, (Ὁ) that, 
under historical circumstances imperfectly known to us, Quirinus was either de 
facto or de jure President of Syria exactly as St. Luke seems to specify. In 


γο 


Lect. II. . OF OUR LORD. 67 


brings the descendants of David to David’s own city. 
Idle and mischievous doubts have sought to 
question the accuracy of this portion of the 
Evangelical history, to which we can here pause only to 
return the briefest answer.’ But this I will presume to 
say, that I feel certain no fair and honest investigator can 
study the various political considerations connected with 
this difficult question, without ultimately coming to the 
conclusion, not only that the account of St. Luke is re- 
concilable with contemporary history, but that it is con- 
firmed by it, in a manner most striking and most persua- 
sive. When we remember that the kingdom of Herod | 
was not yet formally converted into a Roman province, 
and yet was so dependent upon the imperial city’ as to be 
practically amenable to all its provincial edicts, how very 
striking it is to find,—in the first place, that a taxing 
took place at a time when sucha general edict can be 


Ver. 4. 


favor of this latter supposition we have the thrice-repeated assertion of Justin 
Martyr (Apol. τ. ch. 34, 46, Trypho, ch. 78), that Quirinus was President at the 
time in question, and the interesting fact recently brought to light by Zumpt, 
(Commentationes Epigraphice, Part 11. Berl. 1844), that owing to Cilicia, when 
separated from Cyprus, being united to Syria, Quirinus, as governor of the first- 
mentioned province, was really also governor of the last-mentioned, — whether 
in any kind of association with Saturninus (see Wordsw. in /oc.), or otherwise, can 
hardly be ascertained, — and that his subsequent more special connection with 
Syria led his earlier, and apparently brief, connection to be thus accurately 
noticed. This last view, to say the least, deserves great consideration, and has 
been adopted by Merivale, Hist. of Romans, Vol. iv. p. 457. The treatises and 
discussions on this subject are extremely numerous. Those best deserving con- 
sideration are, perhaps, Greswell, Dissert. No. x1v.; Huschke, wber den zur Zeit 
der Geburt Jes. Chr. gehaltenen Census, Bresl. 1840; Wieseler, Chron. Synops. p. 
73 sq. (in these πρώτη is explained away); and Patritius, de Evangeliis, Dissert. 
xvii. Book 111. p. 161, where (α) is advocated. 

1 The main objections that have been urged against this portion of St. Luke’s 
narrative are well examined and convincingly refuted by Wieseler, Chron. 
Synops. I. 2, pp. 75—122. The most important work for general reference on 
the historical and political circumstances connected with this event, beside the 
above work of Wieseler, is that of Huschke, tiber den zur Zeit u. 8. w., referred 
to in the foregoing note. 

2 See Wieseler, Chron. Synops. τ. 2, p. 93 sq. Passages which prove the 
dependence of Judza, especially as tributary to the Roman government, are 
cited by Greswell, Dissert. No. xxii. Vol. ii. p. 875. For further facts and 
reference, see Winer, RWB. Art. “‘ Judia,’”’ Vol. i. p. 680. 


68 THE BIRTH AND INFANCY Lect. II. 


proved to have been in force ; and, in the next place, to 
find that that taxing in Judea is incidentally described as 
having taken place according to the yet recognized cus- 
toms of the country, — that it was, in fact, essentially im- 
perial and Roman in origin, and yet Herodian and Jewish 
in form. How strictly, how minutely consistent is 1t with 
actual historical relations to find that Joseph, who under 
purely Roman law might, perhaps, have been enrolled at 
Nazareth,? is here described by the Evangelist as journey- 
ing to be enrolled at the town of his forefathers, “ because 
he was of the house and lineage ὅ of David.” 
This accordance of the sacred narrative with 
the perplexed political relations of the intensely national, 
yet all but subject Judea, is so exact and so convincing, 
that we may even profess ourselves indebted to scepticism 
for having raised a question to which an answer may be 
given at once so fair, so explicit, and so conclusive. It 
seems almost idle to pause further on this portion of the 
narrative and to seek for reasons why the Virgin accom- 
panied Joseph in this enforced journey to the city of his 
fathers.t Is it positively necessary to ascribe to her some 


Luke ii. 4. 


1 See the Monumentum Ancyranum, as cited and commented on by Wieseler, 
Chron. Synops. p. 90 sq., and compare Bynzus, de Natali Jes. Chr. τ. 8, p. 800; 
Spanheim, Dub. Evang. No. vu. Vol. ii. p. 162. 

2 This is the objection stated in its usual form; but it seems very doubtful if, 
even on merely general historical data, it can be substantiated. In fact Huschke 
(uber den Cens. p. 116 sq.) has apparently demonstrated the contrary, and proved 
that in every Roman census each individual was enrolled where he had his 
‘forum originis.”? This, however, need not be pressed, as the journey of Joseph 
is so much more plausibly attributed to the Jewish form, in accordance with 
which the census was conducted. Comp. Bynzus, de Natali Jes. Chr. 1. 3, p. 
837, and a good article by Winer, RWB. ‘ Schatzung.”’ Vol. ii. p. 898—401. 

8 The terms here used, οἶκος and Tatpla, seem to be specially and exactly 
chosen. The latter is used with reference to the mane or gentes, which 
traced their origin to the twelve patriarchs, the former to the ΓΞ M3 or 
Jamilie, of which these latter were composed. See Winer, RWB. Art. | 
*Stamme,” Vol. ii. p. 518 sq. 

4 If the census had been purely Roman in its form, it would seem that the 
presence of the Virgin would certainly not have been needed, the giving in of 
the names of women and children being considered sufficient. Comp. Dionys. 
Halic. tv. 15; Huschke, iiber den Cens. p. 121. As, however, in accordance with 
the view taken in the text, it is to be considered rather as Jewish in form, the 
presence of Mary is still less to be accounted for on any purely legal reasons. 


Lect. II. OF OUR LORD. 69 


inheritance which required her presence at the enrolment 
at Bethlehem? Is it really not enough for us that St. 
Luke relates that she did take this journey; and is it so 
‘strange that at that time of popular gatherings, and per- 
haps popular excitement,’ she should brave the exhaustion 
of a long journey, rather than lose the protection of one 
to whom she must have been bound by ties of the holiest 
nature, and who shared with her the knowledge of a mys- 
tery that had been sealed in silence since the foundations 
of the world? On such subordinate and bootless inquiries 
we need, 1 am sure, delay no longer. 

And now the mysterious hour, which an old apocryphal 
writer has described with such striking yet ἘΣ 
such curious imagery,? was nigh at hand. és attendant cir- 
Very soon after the arrival at Bethlehem, 77°" 
perchance on the self-same night, in one of the limestone 
caverns, — for I see no reason for rejecting the statement 
of one who was born little more than a century afterwards, 
and not forty miles from the same spot,?—23in one of the 


The favorite hypothesis that she was an heiress, and possessor of a real estate at 
Bethlehem, and so legally bound to appear (Olsh. in doc.), is now generally, and 
as it would seem rightly, given up. See Winer, RWB. Art. “Schatzung,” Vol. 
ii. p. 401. 

1 Compare the sensible remarks of Wieseler, Chron. Synops. p. 128. 

2 The sort of pause, as it were, in all things that marked this most momentous 
period in the world’s history is thus curiously described in the Protevangelium 
Jacobi, cap. 18: ‘* And I Joseph was walking, and yet was not walking; and 1 
looked up into the sky, and I saw the sky in amazement; and I looked up to 
the pole of heaven and I saw it standing still, and the birds of the air in tran- 
quil calm; and I directed my gaze on the earth, and I saw a bowl-like table, 
and laboring men around it, and their hands were in the bowl], and they who 
had meat in their mouths were not eating, and they that were taking up food 
raised it not up, and they that were bringing it up to their mouths were not 
bringing it up; but the countenances of all were directed upwards. And I saw 
sheep in the act of being driven, and they were standing still; and the shepherd 
was raising his hand to smite them, and his arm remained aloft. And I gazed 
on the torrent-course of a river, and I beheld the kids lowering their heads 
towards it and not drinking, and all things in their courses for the moment 
suspended ” (ed. Tisch. pp. 33, 34). Compare Hofmann, Leben Jesu, p. 110. 

3 The statement of Justin Martyr, who was born at Sichem, about A. D. 103, is 
very distinct: TevynSévros δὲ τότε τοῦ παιδίου ἐν Βηϑλεέμ, ἐπειδὴ Ἰωσὴφ 
οὐκ εἶχεν ἐν τῇ κώμῃ ἐκείνῃ ποῦ καταλῦσαι, ἐν σπηλαίῳ τινὶ σύνεγγυς 
τῆς κώμης κατέλυσε. --- Tryph. cap. 78, Vol. ii. p. 264 (ed. Otto). This ancient 


70 THE BIRTH AND INFANCY Lecv. IL 


caverns in that narrow ridge of long gray hill on whick 
stands the city of David, was the Redeemer born into a 
world that rejected Him, even in His mother’s womb. 
How brief and how simple are the words that relate 
these homely circumstances of the Lord’s Nativity. How 
surely do the mother’s recital and the mother’s stored- 
up memories come forth in the artless touches of detail. 
And yet with how much of holy and solemn reserve is 
that first hour of a world’s salvation passed over by the 
Evangelist. We would indeed fain inquire more into the 
wonders of that mysterious night; and they are not 
wholly withheld from us. The same Evangelist that tells 
us that the mid-day sun was darkened during the last 
hours of the Redeemer’s earthly life, tells us 
also that in His first hours the night was 
turned into more than day, and that heavenly 
glories shone forth, not unwitnessed, while 
angels announce to shepherd-watchers ® on the grassy slopes 


Luke ααϊϊῖ, 44. 


Luke ii. 9. 


tradition has been repeated by Origen ((Ce/s. 1. 51), Eusebius (Demonstr. Evang. 
vil. 2), Jerome (£pist. ad Marcell. xxiv.), and other ancient writers, and has 
been generally admitted by modern writers and travellers as far from improba- 
ble. Comp. Stanley, Palest. p. 438. Dr. Thomson (The Land and the Book, Vol. 
ii. p. 507), though admitting the ambiguity of the tradition, opposes it on reasons 
derived from the context of the sacred narrative, which are however far from 
convincing. The Virgin might easily have been removed to the οἰκία specified 
in Matt. ii. 11, before the arrival of the Magi. For further details and reff. see 
Thilo, Codex Apocr. p. 381 sq.; Hofmann, Leben Jesu, Ὁ. 108; and avery good 
article by Rey. G. Wiiliams, in the Ecclesiologist for 1848. 

1 The reader who may have an interest in the outward aspects of these sacred 
localities will find a colored sketch of Bethlehem and its neighborhood in Rob- 
erts’s Holy Land, Vol. ii. Plate 84. The illustrations, however, most strongly 
recommended by an Oriental traveller of some experience to the writer of this 
note, as giving the truest idea of the sacred localities, are those of Frith, and the 
excellent views of Jerusalem and its environs executed by Robertson and Beato 
(Gambart and Co.). 

2 See above, p. 56, note 2, where this subject is briefly noticed. 

3 Luke ii. 8, ἀγραυλοῦντες καὶ φυλάσσοντες φυλακὰς τῆς νυκτός ; the last 
words defining the time and qualifying the two preceding participles. The fact 
here specified has been often used in the debated subject of the exact time of 
year at which our Lord’s birth took place. But little, however, can really be 
derived from it, as the frequently quoted notice of the Talmudical writers (see 
Lightfoot on Luke ii. 8), that the herds were brought in from the fields about the 
Yeginning of November and driven out again about March, is merely general, 
and might include so many modifications arising from season or locality (see 


Lxct. IL. OF OUR LORD. Tf 


of Bethlehem the tidings of great joy, and proclaim the 
new-born Saviour. How mysterious are 
the ways of God’s dealings with men. The 
Desire of all nations at length come, the Saviour born into 
an expectant world, and — announced to village shepherds. 
What a bathos, what a hopeless bathos to the unbelieving 
or unmeditative spirit! How noticeable that the Apoc- 
ryphal writers, who spin out with the most dreary pro- 
lixity every other hint supplied by the sacred writers, pass 
over this in the fewest possible words,’ and as something 
which they could neither appreciate nor understand. And 
yet what a divine significance is there in the fact, that to 
the spiritual descendants of the first type of the Messiah, 
Abel the keeper of sheep, the announcement is made that 
the great Shepherd of the lost sheep of humanity is born 


Luke ii. 11. 


Sepp, Leben Christi, Vol. i. p. 218; Wieseler, Chron. Synops. p. 146), that it can- 
not fairly be urged as conclusive against the traditional date in December. Nay, 
temporary circumstances —the large afflux of strangers to Bethlehem — might 
have easily led to a temporary removal of the cattle into some of the milder val- 
leys to provide an accommodation of which at least the Holy Family were 
obliged to avail themselves. Still, it must be said, the fact viewed simply does 
seem to incline us towards a period less rigorous than mid-winter; and when we 
join with this chronological data which appear positively to fix the epoch as sub- 
sequent to the beginning of January (see Wieseler, Chron. Synops. p. 145), and 
further, considerations derived from the probable sequence of events, and the 
times probably occupied by them, we perhaps may slightly lean to the opinion 
that early in Febr. (most probably A.v.c. 750; Sulpic. Sever. Hist. Sacr. Book 
11. ch. 39) was the time of the Nativity. The question has been discussed from a 
very early period. In the time of Clement of Alexandria (Strom. 1. 21, Vol. i. 
Ῥ. 407, ed. Pott), by whom it appears to have been considered rather a matter of 
περιεργία, the traditions were anything but unanimous (some selecting Jan. 6, 
some Jan. 10, others April 20, and even May 20), and it was not till the fourth 
century that December 25 became generally accepted as the exact date. See the 
useful table attached to the valuable dissertation of Patritius, de Evang. Book 
111. 19, p. 276. Out of the many treatises and discussions that have been written 
on this subject, the following may be specified: Ittig, de Fest. Nativ. Dissert. 
11.; Jablonsky, de Origine Fest. Nativ. Vol. iii. p. 317 sq. (ed. te Water); Span- 
heim, Dub. Evangel. x11. Vol. ii. p. 208 sq.; Greswell, Dissert. x11. Vol. i. p. 38] 
sq.; Wieseler, Chron. Synops. p. 182. Compare also Clinton, Fasti Hell. Vol. iii. 
Ῥ. 256 sq.; and Browne, Ordo Seclorum, ὃ 23 sq., p. 26 sq. <A distinct Homily 
on this subject will be found in Chrysost. Homil. in Diem Natal. Vol. ii. p. 417 sq. 
(ed. Bened. 1834). 

1 See Pseudo-Matt. Evang. cap. 13; Evang Infant. Arab. cap. 4; and com, 
pare Hofmann, Leben Jesu, Ὁ. 117. Tradition affects to preserve their names — 
Misael, Acheel, Cynacus, and Stephanus, 


72 THE BIRTH AND INFANCY Lect. II. 


into the world What a mysterious fitness that that 
Gospel, of which the characteristic was that 
it was preached unto the poor, was first pro- 
claimed neither to the ceremonial Pharisee, who would 
have questioned it, nor to the worldly Sadducee, who 
would have despised it, nor to the separatist Essene,? who 
would have given it a mere sectarian significance, but to 
men whose simple and susceptible hearts made them come 
with haste, and see, and believe, and spread abroad the 
wonders they had been permitted to behold. Shepherds 
were the first of men who glorified and praised God for 
their Saviour; shepherds were the first earthly preachers 4 
of the Gospel of Christ. 

How far their praises and the wonders they had to tell 


Mat. xi. 5. 


1 “Tt fell not out amiss that shepherds they were; the news fitted them well. 
It well agreed to tell shepherds of the yeaning of a strange Lamb, such a Lamb 
as should ‘take away the sins of the world;’ such a Lamb as they might ‘send 
to the Ruler of the world for a present,’ mitte Agnum Dominatori terre,— 
Esay’s Lamb. Or if ye will, to tell shepherds of the birth of a Shepherd, 
Ezekiel’s shepherd: Eece suscitabo vobis pastorem, ‘ Behold, I will raise you a 
Shepherd,’ ‘the Chief Shepherd,’ ‘the Great Shepherd,’ and ‘the Good Shep-< 
herd that gave His life for His flock.’’»— Andrewes, Serm. v. Vol. i. p. 65 (A.-C. 
Libr.). 

2 The spiritual characteristics and relations of these three sects are briefly 
but ably noticed by Lange, Leben Jesu, 11.1.1, Part 1. p.17. The Pharisee cor- 
rupted the current and tenor of revelation by ceremonial additions, the Saddu- 
cee by reducing it toa mere deistic morality, the Essene by idealizing its historical 
aspects, or by narrowing its widest principles and precepts into the rigidities of 
a false and morbid asceticism. Superstition, scepticism, and schism alike found 
in the cross of Christ a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence. For further 
notices of these sects and their dissensions, see Jost, Geschichte des Judenthums, 
11. 2. 8, Vol. i. Ὁ: 197 sq. 

3 ** Why was it that the Angel went not to Jerusalem, sought not out the 
Scribes and Pharisees, entered not into the synagogues of the Jews, but found 
shepherds..... and preached the gospel to them? Because the former were 
corrupt and ready to be cut to the heart with envy; while these latter were 
uncorrupt, affecting the old way of living of the patriarchs, and also of Moses, 
for these inen were shepherds.” — Origen ap. Cramer, Caten. Vol. i. p.20. Com- 
pare, too, Theophyiact in loc. For some further practical considerations, see 
Bp. Taylor, Life of Christ, Part τ. ad Sect. 4, Vol. i. p. 45 sq. (Lond. 1836). 

4 The first preachers, as Cyril rightly observes (Comment. on Luke, Serm. 11. 
Vol. i. p. 18, Trans]., Oxf. 1859), were angels, —a distinction faintly hinted at by 
the very terms of the original: ὡς ἀπῆλϑον am αὐπῶν eis τὸν οὐρανὸν οἱ ἄγγε- 
λοι, καὶ οἱ ἄνϑδιρωποι of ποιμένες εἶπον κ. τ. A. Here it need scarcely be 
said we have no more idle periphrasis (‘homo pastor,” Drus.), but an opposi- 
tion to the preceding term ἄγγελοι. See Meyer in loc. 


Lect. ΤΙ. OF OUR LORD. 73 


of wrought on the hearts of those who heard them, we are 
not enabled to say. The holy reserve of | πα 
6 circumcision 
the Virgin mother, who kept all these say- πὰ presentation in 
- ° the Temple. 
ings' and pondered them in her heart, would 
lead us to believe that at any rate the his- 
tory of the miraculous conception was not 
generally divulged; and that the Lord’s earthly parents 
spake not beyond the small circle of those immediately 
around them. The circumcision, from the 
brief notice of the Evangelist, would cer- 
tainly seem to have taken place with all circumstances of 
privacy and solitude, —in apparent contrast to that of the 
Forerunner, which appears to have been with gatherings 
and rejoicings,? and was marked by marvels that were 
soon noised abroad throughout all the hill 
country of Judza. Nay, even at the presen- 
tation in the Temple, more than a month afterwards,’ the 
Evangelist’s remark, that Joseph and Mary | 
marvelled at Simeon’s prophecy, would seem 
distinctly to show that no circumstances from without had 
as yet proved sufficient to prepare them for the mysterious 
welcome which awaited the infant Saviour in His Father’s 
temple. 


Luke ii. 17. 


Ver. 19. 


Luke ii. 21. 


LTuke i. 65. 


Luke ii. 33. 


1 The expression τὰ ῥήματα ταῦτα (Luke ii. 19) is rightly referred by most 
modern commentators, not to the circumstances generally (T& πράγματα ταῦτα, 
Theoph.), but to the things mentioned by the shepherds; so rightly Euthym. 
in loc.—7& παρὰ τῶν ποιμένων λαληϑέντα. On the reasonableness of this 
reserve, see Mill, on Pantheistic Princ. 11. 1. 2, p. 212. 

2 Even if we limit, as perhaps is most grammatically exact, the subject of 
ἦλϑον (Luke i. 59) to those who were to perform the rite of circumcision, the 
context would certainly seem to show that many were present. 

3 The exact time in the case of a male child (in the case of a female it was 
double) was forty days, during seven of which the mother was to be accounted 
unclean; during the remaining thirty-three days she was “‘to continue in the 
blood of her purifying; she was “10 touch no hallowed thing, nor come into 
the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled.” Lev. xii.4. For 
further information see Michaelis, Law of Moses, § 192, Bahr, Symbolik, Vol. ii. 
p- 487, Winer, RWB. Art. “ Reinigkeit,” Vol. ii. p. 315 sq.; and for a sound 
sermon on the subject, Frank, Serm. xxi. Vol. i. p. 340 (A.-C. Libr.), and esp. 
Mill, Univ. Serm. xxt. p. 400. The indication of the comparative poverty of 
the holy Family supplied by the notice of their offering (Luke ii. 24, Lev. xii. 8) 
has often been observed by modern, but seldom by ancient, expositors. 


7 


14 THE BIRTH AND INFANCY Lect. Il. 


But what a welcome that was, and how seemingly at 
variance with all outward circumstances. 

The devout, and let us add, inspired Simeon, 

whose steps had been led that day to the Temple by the 
Holy Spirit,’ saw perchance before him no more than two 
unnoted worshippers. But it was enough. When the 
eyes of the aged waiter for the consolation 
of Israel saw the Holy Child, he saw all. 
‘There in helpless infancy and clad in mortal flesh was the 
Lord’s Christ, —there was the fulfilment of 
all his mystic revelations, the granted issue 
of all his longings and all his prayers.‘ Can we marvel 
that his whole soul was stirred to its depths, 
that he took the Holy Child in his arms, and 
poured forth, in the full spirit of prophecy,’ that swan-song 


Luke ii. 25. 


Ver. 25. 


Ver. 26. 


Luke ii. 28. 


1 The history of this highly favored man is completely unknown. Some 
recent attempts (Michaelis, al.) have been made to identify him with Rabban 
Siméon, the son of Hillel, and father of Gamaliel, who was afterwards president 
of the Sanhedrin (Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr. in loc.; Otho, Lex. Rabbin. s. v. “ Sim- 
eon,”’ p. 605): such an identification, however, has nothing in its favor, except 
the name, —a sufficiently common one, and this against it, that Rabban Simeon 
could not have been as old as the Simeon of St. Luke is apparently represented 
to be. For some notices of Rabban Simeon, see Sepp, Leben Christi, ch. XVII. 
Vol. ii. p. 52 sq. 

2 This seems implied in the words ἦλϑεν ἐν τῷ Πνεύματι εἰς τὸ ἱερόν, Luke 
ii. 27, —the preposition with its case marking the influence in which and under 
which he was acting, ‘‘impulsu Spiritus ” (Meyer, on Matt. xxii. 43), and though 
not perfectly identical with, yet approximating in force to, the instrumental 
dative; τῷ Πνεύματι τῳ ἁγίῳ kwnsels, Euthym. in loc. So, too, Origen, even 
more explicitly, —‘“‘ Spiritus sanctus eum duxit in templum.”— Jn Luc. Hom. 
xv. Vol. iii. p. 949 (ed. Bened.). 

3 One of the apocryphal writers has represented the scene very differently, 
and in suggestive contrast to the chaste dignity of the inspired narrative: “Tum 
videt illum Simeon senex instar columne lucis fulgentem, cum domina Maria 
Virgo mater ejus de eo letabunda ulnis suis eam gestaret: circumdabant autem 
eum angeli instar circuli celebrantes, tanquam satellites regi adstantes.” — 
Evang. Infant. Arab. cap. vi. Ὁ. 178 (ed. Tisch.). The Pseudo-Matt. Evang. 
keeps more closely to the inspired narrative. See cap. xv. p. 78. 

4 For an essay on the character of this faithful watcher, see Evans, Script. 
Biogr. Vol. i. p. 826; and for some good comments on his inspired canticle, 
Patritius, de Evang. Dissert. xxvi. Part 111. p. 804. In the early Church Sim- 
eon appears to have been designated by the title, 6 Se0ddxXos, in memory of the 
blessing accorded to him. Comp. Menolog. Grec. Feb. 8, and the oration of 
Timoth. Hieros. in the Bibl. Max. Patrum, Vol. v. p. 1214. 

5 Προφητικῇ χάριτι τετιμημένος. Cyril Alex. ap. Cramer, Caten. Vol. ii. p. 28, 


Lecr. IL. OF OUR LORD. 75 


of the seer of the Old Covenant, to which our Church so 
justly and so lovingly assigns a place in its daily service? 
Can we marvel that with the Holy Child still in his arms? 
he blessed the wondering parents, though the spirit of 
prophecy that was upon him mingled with that blessing 
words that must have sunk deep into the heart of the Vir- 
gin,” words often pondered over, yet perchance then only 
fully understood, in all the mystic bitterness of their truth, 
when, not a thousand paces from where she then was 
standing, the nails tore the hands that she had but then 
been holding, and the spear pierced the side she had but 
then been pressing to her bosom? 


and Serm. rv. Vol. i.) p. 25 (Transl.). On the character of this and the other 
inspired canticles in this part of the Scripture, see the good remarks of Mill, on 
Pantheistic Principles, Part 11. 1. 8, p. 43 sq. 

1 Though we cannot, with Meyer and others, safely press the meaning of the 
verb Κεῖται as implying “qui in ulnis meis jacet”’ (Beng.), it would yet seem 
highly probable from the context that this blessing was pronounced by the aged 
Simeon while still bearing his Saviour in his arms. For a good practical ser- 
mon on Simeon’s thus receiving our Lord, see Frank, Serm. xx111. Vol. i. p. 360 
sq. (A.-C: Libr.), and compare Hacket, Serm. x. p. 88 sq. (Lond. 1675). 

2 The prophetic address of Simeon, which it may be observed is directed 
specially to the Virgin (kal εἶπε πρὸς Μαριὰμ τὴν μητέρα αὐτοῦ, Luke ii. 34), has 
two separate references, the one general, to the Jewish nation, and the opposed 
spiritual attitudes into which the Gospel of Christ would respectively bring 
those who believed and those who rejected (πτῶσιν μέν, τῶν μὴ πιστευόντων, 
ἀνάστασιν δέ, τῶν πιστευόντων, Theophylact); the other special, to the Virgin 
personally (kal σοῦ δὲ αὐτῆς κ. τ. A., ver. 35), and to the bitterness of agony 
with which she should hereafter behold the sufferings of her divine Son. So 
rightly Euthymius: ῥομφαίαν δὲ ὠνόμασε Thy τμητικωτάτην καὶ ὀξεῖαν ὀδύνην, 
ἥτις διῆλθε τὴν καρδίαν τῆς Θεομήτορος, ὅτε ὃ υἱὸς αὐτῆς προσηλώϑη τῷ 
σταυρῷ. Compare also a good comment in Cramer, Caten. Vol. ii. p. 24, and 
Mill, Univ. Serm. XxX1. p. 415. The only remaining exegetical difficulty is the 
connection of the final clause, ὅπως ἂν k. τ. A. (ver. 35). According to the 
ordinary punctuation, this would be dependent on ver. 34, the first clause of 
ver. 35 being enclosed in a parenthesis; according, however, to the best modern 
interpreters, it is regarded as simply dependent on what precedes: the mystery, 
that the heart of the earthly mother was to be riven with agony at the sufferings 
of her diving Son, involved as its end and object the bringing out of the true 
characters and thoughts of men, and making it clear and manifest—is μὲν 6 
ἀγαπῶν αὐτόν, καὶ μέχρι Savdrou τὴν εἰς αὐτὸν ἀγάπην ἐνδεικνύμενος" Tis δὲ 
ὁ ἐπίπλαστον ἔχων τὴν εἰς αὐτὸν πίστιν, σκανδάλου πληρωδεὶς διὰ τὸν σταυ- 
ρόν. Cramer, Caten. Vol. ii. p. 25. So Augustine, in his answer to the queries 
of Paulinus of Nola (Epist. cxi1x. 33, Vol. ii. p. 644, ed. Migné), except that he 
unduly limits the πολλῶν καρδιῶν διαλογισμοὶ to the “insidix Judeorum et 
discipulorum infirmitas.” 


10 THE BIRTH AND INFANCY Lect. IL 


Yet man was not alone to welcome the Lord; one sex 

was not alone to greet Him, in whom 

Gal. iii. 28. there was neither male nor female, but all 

Luke i. 8% were one. Not one sex only, for at that very 

instant, we are told by St. Luke, the aged 
and tenderly-faithful Anna’ enters the place she loved so 
well. Custom rather than revelation appears 
to have brought the widowed prophetess 
into the temple, but she too saw and believed, and returned 
grateful praise? unto the God of her fathers; and of her 
this special notice has been made by the Evangelist, that 
“she spake of the Lord to all them that 
were looking for redemption in Jerusalem.” 
The daughter of Phanuel® was the first preacher of Christ 
in the city of the Great King. 

And her preaching was not long left unconfirmed. 
What she was now telling in secret chambers* was soon 
to be proclaimed on the house-tops. The ends of the 
earth were already sending forth the heralds of the new- 


Ver. 87. 


Luke τὶ. 38. 


1 The tenderness and constancy of the aged prophetess to the memory of the 
husband of her youth is slightly enhanced by the reading of Lachmann and 
Tischendorf,—xfpa ἕως ἐτῶν ὀγδοήκοντα τεσσάρων, Luke ii. 87; but this 
reading, though supported by A, B, L, the Vulgate, and other versions, is by 
no means certain. The honor in which the “ univira” was held by the Jews, is 
shown very distinctly by the comments of Josephus on the persistent widow- 
hood of Antonia: Antig. xvii. 6.6. Compare Winer, RWB. Art. ‘‘ Ehe,” 
Vol. i. p. 299. 

2 This perhaps is a fairly correct paraphrase of the peculiar term used by St. 
Luke, avSwpodroyeito. The remarks of the accurate Winer on this word are as 
follows: “ Possis existimare de celebrandi laudandique significatione; . . . sed, ut 
dicam quod sentio, addendum erat, celebrantis istius pietatem mulieris maxime 
in grutarium actione positam esse... . Itaque hee videtur verbi avsouodoy: vis 
propria esse, 4vT) enim manifesto referendi rependendique sensum habet, atque 
ita facile perspicias, quod inter ὅμολογ. Θεῷ et avdouoroy. Θεῷ intersit.” — De 
Verb. c. Prep. Fasc. 111. p. 20,—a treatise unfortunately never completed. 

8 The special mention of the father and tribe of Anna was perhaps designed 
to give to the narrative a still further stamp of historical truth. Anna, the 
daughter of Phanuel, might have been a name still remembered by many: 
ἐπιμένει ὁ εὐαγγελίστης TH περὶ THs” Avyns ἀφηγήσει, καὶ τὸν πατέρα καὶ Thy 
φυλὴν καταλέγων, ἵνα μάϑωμεν Ett ἀληϑῆ λέγαι, μάρτυρας ὡσανεὶ πολλοὺς 
προσκαλούμενος. Theoph. in loc. 

4 Anna’s preaching was not general, but τοῖς προσδεχομένοις λύτρωσιν ἐν 
Ἱερουσαλήμ, ver. 88. The local addition ἐν “Iepova. appears to belong specially 
to the participle Tots προσδεχομένοιδ. See Meyer in loc. 


Lect. II. OF OUR LORD. Le 


born King. The feet of strange pilgrims and worshippers 

were even now on the mountains of the Promised Land. 
It would seem from the narrative that Joseph and Mary 

had returned but a few days’ to their tem- 

porary abode at Bethlehem,’ when sages, ee eta: 

bearing the already almost generic name of 

Magi, arrive from some Eastern lands not specified by the 

Evangelist, but probably remote as the Arabia which one 

ancient tradition,®? or the Persia which another ancient 

tradition,‘ has fixed upon as their home. Witnesses were 


1 According to one MS. of the Pseudo-Matt. Evangelium (cap. XVI. p. 79, ed. 
Tisch.), two days afterwards; according to the text adopted by Tischendorf, the 
completely improbable period of two years. See Wieseler, Chron. Synops. I. 2, 
p. 59, note, who, however, himself (see below, p. 73, note 1) seems to press too 
strongly the ἀπὸ διετοῦς καὶ κατωτέρω, Matt. ii. 16. The Protev. Jacobi (cap. 
XXI.) makes the visit of the Magi to have been made to the Holy Family while 
yet in the cave, a statement distinctly at variance with Matt. ii. 11, ἐλϑόντες εἰς 
τὴν οἰκίαν. For chronological considerations substantiating the view taken in 
the text, see Wieseler, Chron. Synops. p. 154 sq. 

2 The narratives of St. Matthew and St. Luke have been here often regarded 
as almost wholly irreconcilable. See Meyer and Alford én doc. Is this however 
so certain? Why may not St. Luke have studiously omitted what he might pos- 
sibly have known had been recorded by another Evangelist, and thus have left 
unnoticed the occurrences which intervened between this visit to the Temple 
and the return to Nazareth, specified by St. Matthew, ch. ii. 23? The reconcilia- 
tion adopted by Eusebius (Quest. ad Marin. ap. Mai, Bibl. Patr. Vol. iv. p. 258), 
that Joseph and Mary went direct to Nazareth, and afterwards returned to 
Bethlehem, is not very probable, as no reason can be assigned why the Holy 
Family should have returned again to a place with which they appear to have 
little or no connection. See Augustine, de Consensu Evang. 11. 5. 16, Vol. iii. 
Ῥ. 1079 (ed. Migné), Wieseler, Chron. Synops. p. 156. 

8 Such is the older tradition, noticed and supported by Justin Martyr, Tryph. 
cap. 78, Vol. ii. p. 263 (ed. Otto), Tertullian, adv. Jud. cap. 9, and adv. Mare. m1. 
18. The objection to this view seems to be the term ἀνατολῶν, which, in the 
New Testament at least, can hardly be regarded as a natural designation of a 
country which elsewhere is always specified by its regular geographical name. 
See Winer, RWB. Art. ‘Stern der Weisen,” Vol. ii. p. 528, but also contrast the 
reff. of Patritius, de Evang. Dissert. xxvii. Part 111. 317. 

4 This somewhat later tradition is maintained by Chrysostom (in loc.), Pseudo- 
Basil (Vol. ii. 855, ed. Bened.), Ephrem (Cantic de Maria et Magis, Vol. iii. p. 
601, ed. Assem.), the Christian poet Juvencus, and many other ancient writers, 
and with considerable probability, as Persia and the adjoining countries appear 
always to have been regarded as the chief seat of the Magian philosophy (see 
the numerous confirmatory reff. in Greswell, Dissert. XVIII.), and as the term 
ai ἀνατολαὶ might naturally and suitably have been applied by the Evangelist to 
the trans-Euphratean countries of which Persia formed a portion. Such, too, is 
the opinion of apparently the majority of the more learned modern writers who 


ὁ ΣῈ 


78 THE BIRTH AND INFANCY Lect. II. 


they, from whatever clime they came, of the wisdom οἱ 
God displaying itself in the foolishness or misconceptions 
of man.! Witnesses were they of the cherished longings 
of ancient nations ;? bright examples of a faith that could 
dignify even superstitions, and of hopes that grew not 
cold when all must have seemed utter hopelessness. 

But what could have brought these first-fruits of the 
wisdom of the Eastern world from their own 
distant lands? Even that which was most cal- 
culated to work in them the liveliest belief and conviction. 
A new star,® which the tenor of the narrative wholly pre- 


The guiding star. 


have touched upon this subject; we may pause to specify the celebrated Orientalist, 
Hyde (de Relig. Vet. Pers. cap. XXXI. 883), who particularly notices their country 
as Parthia; the learned Dr. Thomas Jackson (Creed, Book vii. Vol. vi. p. 261, Oxf. 
1844), and the no less learned Dr. Mill (Obs. on Pantheistic Principles, Part 11. 
pp. 365, 875). For further information the student may be referred to Spanheim, 
Dub. Evang. Xvi1.—xxIv. Part 11. p. 255 sq., the excellent Dissertation of 
Patritius above referred to (de Evangeliis, Part 111. pp. 3809—3854, where every 
question relating to these sages is fully discussed), Greswell, Dissert. xv111. Vol. 
ii. p. 185 sq., Hoffmann, Leben Jesu, p. 125, and especially the sound and valua- 
ble comments of Mill, on Panth. Princ. Part τι. 3.1, p. 364. 

1 See the excellent remarks of Mill on the true physical influence and true 
significancy of the heavenly bodies, and the counterfeit science of astrology 
with which it was adulterated. — Observations on Pantheistic Principles, Part II. 
8 2, pp. 364, 365. Compare also a learned and not uninteresting dissertation on 
judicial astrology in Spanheim, Dub. Evang. Xxxilil. Part 11. p. 334 sq. 

2 Τί has long been a matter of discussion what precisely led these Magi to 
expect a birth so prefigured. See Spanheim, Dub. Evang. Xxx1v. Part II. p. 
866 sq. Was it due to a carefully preserved knowledge of the prophecy of 
Balaam (Numb. xxiv. 17—19), an opinion maintained by Origen (contr. Cels. 
Book 1. p. 46, ed. Spencer), and the majority of the ancient expositors; or was it 
due to prophecies uttered in their own country, dimly foreshadowing this divine 
mystery (see the citations from the Zend-Avesta, below, p. 77, note 1, and com- 
pare Hyde, de Relig. Pers. Xxx1. p. 889 sq.)? Perhaps the latter view is the 
most probable, especially if we associate with it a belief, which the sacred narra- 
tive gives us every reason for entertaining (Matt. ii. 12), that these faithful men 
received a special illumination both to apply rightly what they had remem- 
bered, and to recognize its verification in the phenomenon of which they were 
now the privileged observers. Compare Mill, Observations, Part τι. 3. 2, p. 368. 

3 Thus far, at least, correctly, Origen (contr. Cels. Book 1. p. 45, ed. Spencer): 
Toy ὀφϑέντα ἀστέμα ἐν TH ἀνατολῇ καινόν εἶναι νομίζομεν Kal μηδενὶ 
τῶν συνήϑων παραπλήσιον οὔτε τῶν ἐν τῇ ἀπλανεῖ οὔτε τῶν ἐν ταῖς 
κατωτέρω σφαίραις. This great writer seems only to err when in his subsequent 
remarks he supposes it to be of the nature of a comet. On this star much, and 
that not always of a satisfactory nature, has been written by both ancient and 
modern commentators. That it was not a star in the usual astronomical sense 
(Wieseler, Chron. Synops. 1. 2, p. 59) seems clear from the special motions appar 


Lect. II. OF OUR LORD. 79 


cludes our deeming aught else than a veritable heavenly 
body moving apparently in the limits of our own atmos- 
phere, and subject not to astronomical, but to special and 
fore-ordered laws, had suddenly beamed, not many months 
before,! upon the eyes of these watchers in their own East- 
ern lands, and, either by codperating with dormant proph- 
ecy or deep-seated expectation, leads them to that land, 
with which either their own science,’ or, more probably, the 


ently attributed to it in the sacred narrative (see Mill, on Panth. Prine. Part τι. 
8. 2, p. 859, note); that it also could not be a mere conjunction of the greater 
planets (Miinter, Stern der Wiesen, Keppler, and similarly Ideler, Handbuch der 
Chronol. Vol. ii. p. 899 sq.,— both following or expanding the older view of 
Keppler) seems also still more certain from the use of the definite term ἀστήρ. 
We therefore justly fall back upon the ancient opinion, that it was a luminous 
body, possibly of a meteoric nature, but subject to special laws regulating its 
appearance and perhaps also its motion. The literature of the subject, which is 
very extensive, will be found in Winer, RWB. Art. ‘‘ Stern der Wiesen,” Vol. ii. 
Ῥ. 523 sq. 

1 The date of the appearance of the star is a question that has been often 
entertained, and cannot easily be decided. Wieseler (Chron. Synops. τ. 2, Ὁ. 59) 
urges a period of two years previous to the arrival of the Magi, pressing the sort 
of date afforded by Matt. ii. 16. See above, p.77. As, however, Greswell (Dis- 
sert. XVII. Vol. ii. p. 136, ed. 2) has fairly shown that the term ἀπὸ διετοῦς καὶ 
κατωτέρω need not be understood as necessarily implying the extreme limit, and 
as it is also probable that Herod would be certain to secure to himself a wide 
margin, we may, with almost equal plausibility, select any period between thir- 
teen and twenty-four months. Patritius (de Evang. Dissert. XxvIl. Part 111. Ὁ. 
834) urges, with a little show of probability, a period of eighteen months, which, 
according to the rough date of the Nativity adopted in these lectures, would 
have to be reduced to sixteen. The time of the miraculous conception seems to 
commend itself as the exact epoch, but causes us either to reduce somewhat 
unduly the ἀπὸ διετοῦς, or (with Greswell) to assume an interval of nearly three 
months between the Presentation and the arrival of the Magi, which is not only 
improbable in itself, but absolutely incompatible with the date, (A. U. c. 750, the 
death-year of Herod), which we have above fixed upon as the probable year of 
the Nativity. See p. 77, note 1. 

2 A few interpreters of this passage, and among them our own expositor 
Hammond (on Matt. ii. 2) and the German chronologer Wieseler (Synops. p. 59), 
regard ἐν τῇ ἀνατολῇ as used with an astronomical reference, “at its rising.” 
This seems at needless variance with the use of the same words in ver. 9, where 
ἐν τῇ ἀνατολῇ and ov ἦν τὸ παιδίον seem to stand in a kind of local antithesis, 
and is in opposition to the apparently unanimous opinion of the Vulgate, Syriac, 
Coptic, and other ancient versions. For yet another view see Jackson, Creed, 
Book vu. Vol. vi. p. 262 (Oxf. 1844). 

3 Much has been said about the astrological association of the constellation of 
the Fish with the land of Juda. See Miinter, Stern der Wiesen, p. 55 sq., Ideler, 
Handb. der Chronol. Vol. ii. p. 409, and Wieseler, Chron. Synops. 1. 2, p. 56. As, 
however, this is more or less associated with the doubtful views as to the nature 
of the star above alluded to, we make no use of such precarious elucidations. 


80 THE BIRTH AND INFANCY Lect. II. 


whole feeling of the Eastern world,' tended to associate 
the mystery of the future. Can we not picture to our- 
selves the excitement and amazement in Jerusalem, as 
those travel-stained men?” entered into the city of David 
with the one question® on their lips, “ Where is he that is 
born King of the Jews?” Can we wonder 
that the aged man still on the throne of 
Juda was filled with strange trouble and 
perplexity? Can we be surprised at the course that was 
immediately followed? 
ἀρ ΑΡΜΕΝ Let us only consider the case in its sim- 
wralness of ‘the ear plest aspects. Here was a question based 
on celestial appearances coming from the 
lips of those in whom it would have seemed most porten- 


Matt. ti. 2. 


Ver. 3. 


1 This general feeling has been above alluded to. See p. 55, note 2, and com- 
pare Mill, on Panth. Princ. Part 11. 3.1, p. 366. 

2 Some interesting notices of the probable time which it would have taken the 
Wise Men to travel from Persia to Jerusalem will be found in Greswell, Dissert. 
XVII. Vol. ii. p. 188 sq. From the calculations there made it would appear that 
they could not have been much less than four months on the road. It has been 
computed by Chrysostom, in reference to the journey of Abraham, that the time 
occupied in a journey from Palestine no further than Chaldza would be about 
70 days. Ad Stagir. 11. Vol. i. p. 188 (cited by Greswell). 

3 The terms of this question deserve some notice, as they serve incidentally to 
show the firm belief of the Magi that the expected King was now really born 
into the world, and yet their complete ignorance, not only of the place of His 
birth, but, as it would seem, also of its mysterious nature and character. Comp. 
Greswell, Harmony, Dissert. xv111. Vol. ii. p. 144, but see contra Theoph. in loc. 
They go naturally to Jerusalem, for where, as Jackson says (Creed, Book VII. p. 
258), ‘should they seek the King of the Jews but in His standing court?” and 
they put forward a question which shows their conviction that a great King had 
been born in the land they were visiting, though, at present, who or where 
they knew not (opposed to Theoph. én /oc.). In the sequel, they were probably 
permitted to behold some glimpses of the true nature of Him whom they came to 
reverence; so that, as Bp. Taylor well says, “ἢ their custom was changed to grace, 
and their learning heightened with inspiration; and God crowned all with a 
spiritual and glorious event.” — Life of Christ, Part 1.4.4. Though then in the 
first προσκυνῆσαι (ver. 2) no more perhaps might have been designed than the 
outward worshipful reverence of Persian usage (Herod. 1. 184), we may well 
believe that in the subsequent performance of the act (ver. 11) there was some- 
thing more, and may not incorrectly believe with Tertullian (adv. Jud. cap. 9), 
Origen (contr. Celsum, Lib. 1. p. 46, ed, Spencer), and indeed the whole early 
Church, that with a deepening though imperfect consciousness these faithful 
men adored the Infant at Bethlehem as God, no Jess than they prostrated them- 
selves before Him as man. See the copious reff. in Patritius, de Hvang. Dissert, 
XXVII. 2, Part 111, p. 948. 


Lect. II. OF OUR LORD. 81 


tous, —the Magi of the East, the ancient watchers of the 
stars. When with this we remember how rife expectation 
was, and how one perhaps of that very council, which the 
dying king? called together, could tell of his own father’s 
mysterious prophecy of the coming Messiah?— when we 
add to this the strange rumors of the Child of Bethlehem, 
fast flying from mouth to mouth beyond that narrow circle 
to which Anna had first proclaimed Him,— can we won- 
der at all that followed? How natural the description of 
the probably hastily-summoned council, and of the ques- 
tion publicly propounded to it touching the birth-place 
of the Messiah. How natural, too, the pri- 
vate inquiry about the star’s appearance made 
specially to the Magi, and how accordant with 
all that we know of Herod, the frightful hypocrisy with 
which they were sent to test and verify the now ascertained 
declaration of prophecy, and the murderous 
sequel. How natural, also, the description of 
the further journey of the Wise Men, their simple joy 


Matt. ii. 4. 
Ver.7. 


Ver. 8. 


1 The death of Herod appears almost certainly to have taken place a few days 
before the Passover of the year A. U. C. 750; apparently, if retrospective calcu- 
lations can be depended on, towards the end of the first week of April. See 
Wieseler, Chron. Syn. p. 57, and compare Clinton, Fasti Hell. Vol. iii. p. 254, 
Browne, Ordo Sec. § 31, p. 31. If, then, we suppose the Saviour’s birth to 
have been in late winter, say, at the beginning of February, the arrival of the 
Magi would have taken place about three weeks before Herod’s death, and a 
very few days before his removal to the baths at Callirrhoe (Joseph. Antiq. 
xvi. 6. 5). Comp. Browne, Ordo Sec. ὃ 28. If we adopt Dec. 25, A. τ. c. 749, a 
date which, as has been above implied (p. 70, note 3) is perhaps not quite so 
probable (compare Wieseler, Chron. Syn. p. 184 sq.), the interval between the 
present event and the death of the wretched king will be proportionately longer, 
and in some respects, it must be admitted, more chronologically convenient. 

2 If, as seems reasonable to suppose, the son of R. Nehumiah ben Hakkana 
was present at the council, he could scarcely have forgotten the prophecy said 
to have been uttered by his father,— that the coming of the Messiah could not 
be delayed more than fifteen years. See Sepp, Leben Christi, Vol. ii. p. 24, and 
the curious work of Petrus Galatinus, de Arcgnis Cathol. Verit. cap. 3, p. 8 
(Francof. 1602). The opinion that this was a special meeting of the Sanhedrin 
(Lightfoot) is perhaps slightly the most probable; the omission of the third 
element, the πρεσβύτεροι τοῦ λαοῦ, is similarly found in Matt. xvi. 21, xx. 18. 
See Meyer in Joc. On the γραμματεῖς τοῦ λαοῦ here mentioned, see Spanheim, 
Dub. Evang. Xxxvitl. Part 11. p. 392 sq., Patritius, de Evang. Dissert. xx1x. 
Part 111. p. 366, and on the Sanhedrin generally, Selden, de Synedriis, 11. 6, Vol. 
ii. p. 1816 sq. Jost. Gesch. des Judenth. 11. 3. 14, Vol. i. p. 278. 


82 THE BIRTH AND INFANCY Lect. II. 


when, on their evening mission to Bethlehem, they again 
see’ the well-remembered star, and find that 
the very powers of the heavens are leading 
them where Rabbinical wisdom? had already sent them. 
How full must now have been their conviction; with what 
opening hearts must they have worshipped; with what holy 
joy must they have spread out their costly 
gifts; how they must now have felt, though 
perhaps still dimly and imperfectly, that they were kneel- 
ing before the hope of a world,—One greater than Zoro- 
aster had ever foretold, a truer Redeemer than the Sosiosh 
of their own ancient creed.? No marvel was 
it, that with prompt obedience they fol- 
lowed the guidance of the visions of the night, and re- 


Ver. 9. 


Hatt. ii. 11. 


Ver. 12. 


1 This seems the only natural meaning that we can assign to the words καὶ ἰδού 
[surely an expression marking the unexpectedness of the reappearance], 6 ἀστὴρ 
ὃν εἶδον ἐν τῇ ἀνατολῇ προῆγεν αὐτούς, Matt. ii.9. Whether the star preceded _ 
them the whole way to Jerusalem, and then disappeared for a short time, or 
whether it only appeared to them in their own country, disappeared, and now 
reappeared, must remain a matter of opinion. The definitive ὃν εἶδον ἐν τ ἢ 
ἀνατολῇ. and still more the unusual strength of the expression which describes 
their joy at again beholding the star,— ἐχάρησαν χαρὰν μεγάλην σφόδρα (ver. 
10),—seem strongly in favor of the latter view. So Spanheim, Dub. Evang. 
xxIx. Part 11. p. 320, Jackson, Creed, Book vit. Vol. vi. p. 261, and Mill, Obser- 
vations, τι. 2. 3, p. 869. 

2 The recent revival of the older anti-christian view, that the prophecy of 
Micah (ch. v. 2) cited, by the Evangelist, either refers to Zorobabel (a view 
unhappily maintained by Theodorus of Mopsuestia), or, if referring to the Mes- 
siah, only alludes to His descent from David, whose seat Bethlehem was, has 
been ably and completely disposed of by Mill, Observations, 11. 2. 8, pp. 891— 
402. On this and other supposed difficulties connected with this prophecy, see 
Spanheim, Dub. Evang. XL1.—xXLvi. Part 1. p. 406; Patritius, de Zvang. Dis- 
sert. xxx. Part 111. ἢ. 368 sq. 

8 According to the statements of Anquetil du Perron, in his Life of Zoroaster, 
prefixed to his edition of the Zend-Avesta (Vol. i. 2, p. 46), Sosiosh was the last of 
the three posthumous sons of Zoroaster, and was to raise and judge the dead and 
renovate the earth. See Jeschts Sadés, xxviit., ‘* Lorsque Sosiosch paroitra, il 
fera du bien au monde entier existant” (Vol. ii. p. 278); Boundehesch, xxXt., 
“ Sosiosch fera revivre les morts” (Vol. ii. p. 411); and similarly, ἐδ. x1. (Vol. ii. 
p. 364); ib. xxx111. (Vol. ii. p. 420). Whatever may be the faults or inaccuracies 
of Du Perron’s translation (many of which have been noticed in Burnof’s Com- 
mentaire sur le Yagna, Paris 1883), it can at any rate now no longer be doubted 
that Zend has its proper place among the primitive languages of the Indo-Ger- 
manic family (see Rask’s Hssay, translated by Von der Hagen, Berl. 1826), and 
that the Avesta must have existed in writing previously to the time of Alexan 
der. See Donaldson, New Cratylus, § 86, p. 144 sq. (ed. 8) 


Τποτ. IL. OF OUR LORD. 83 


turned to their distant home by a way by which they 
came not. 

No sooner had they departed, than the heavenly warn- 
ing is sent to Joseph’ to flee on that very al 

: : 3 Flight into Egypt 
night? into Egypt from the coming wrath of απὰ murder of the 
Herod. And that wrath did not long linger. reeie ἡ 
When the savage king found that his strange bie 
messengers had deceived him, with the broad margin that 
a reckless ferocity left a matter of no moment, he slays 
every male child in Bethlehem, whose age could in any way 
have accorded with the rough date which the first appear- 
ance of the star had been judged to supply. 

On this fiendish act we need dwell no fur- 2% Sunee of 
ther, save to protest against the inferences 
that have been drawn from the silence of a’ contempo- 
rary historian What, we may fairly ask, was such an 


1 Again, it will be observed, consistently with the notice of the preceding 
divine communication vouchsafed to Joseph (Matt. i. 20),— by an angelic visita- 
tion in adream. See again ver 20, and compare the remarks made above, p. 65, 
note 1. Some curious remarks on the nature of angelic visitations in dreams 
will be found in the learned work of Bynzus, de Natali Jes. Chr. τ. 2. 14, p. 210. 

2 Probably on the same night that the Magi arrived; for there seems every 
reason against the view of a commentator in Cramer (Caten. Vol. i. p. 14), that 
the star led them ἐν ἡμέρᾳ μέσῃ. At any rate the Holy Family appear to have 
departed by night: the words, ἐγερϑεὶς παράλαβε, seem to enjoin all prompti- 
tude, — “‘ surge accipe,” Syr. 

3 See above, p. 79, note 1. As Herod made his savage edict inclusive as regards 
locality (ἐν Βηϑλεὲμ καὶ ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς ὁρίοις αὐτῆς. ver. 16), so did he also in 
reference to time: he killed all the children of two years and under (ἀπὸ διετοῦς, 
scil. παιδός, not χρόνου, as apparently Vulg., “8. bimatu”), to make sure that 
he included therein the Divine Infant of Bethlehem; τοὺς μὲν διετεῖς ἀναιρεῖ, 
ἵνα ἔχη πλάτος ὃ χρόνος. Euthym. on Matt. ii. 16, p. 81 (ed. Matthzi). 

4 It seems doubtful whether we need go so far as to say, with Dr. Mill (Obser- 
vations, 11. 8. 1, p. 345), that this silence is remarkable. The concluding days of 
Herod’s life were marked by such an accumulation of barbarities that such an 
event might easily have been overlooked or forgotten. At any rate the refer- 
ence of the well-known passage of Macrobius (Saturnal. 11. 4) to this murder of 
the Innocents, though often denied or explained away (‘‘ aus der Christlichen 
Tradition geflossen ist,”” Meyer, Kommentar. p. 80), seems now clearly established 
and vindicated. .See Mill, ib. p. 849 sq.; and compare Spanheim, Dub. Evang. 
LXXVI. Part 11. p. 5384sq. Itis worthy of notice that if, as seems nearly certain, 
the son of Herod alluded to in that passage was Antipater, the date, of the mur- 
der of the Innocents may be roughly fixed as not very far distant from that of 
the execution of the unhappy man referred to, and this latter event, we know, 


84 THE BIRTH AND INFANCY Lect. II. 


act in the history of a monster whose hand reeked with 
the blood of whole families and of his nearest and dearest 
relations? What was the murder of afew children at Beth- 
lehem in the dark history of one who had, perchance but 
a few days before, burnt alive at Jerusalem above forty 
hapless zealots who had torn down his golden eagle?? 
What was the lamentation at Rama’ compared with that 
which had been heard in that monster’s own palace, and 
which, if his inhuman orders had been executed, would 
have been soon heard in every street in Jerusalem ?? Even 
doubters have here admitted that there is no real difficulty ; * 
and why should not we? Is the silence of a prejudiced 
Jew to be set against the declarations of an inspired 
Apostle? 

The events of this portion of the sacred narrative come 
to their close with the notice of the divinely ordered jour- 
ney back from Egypt on the death of Herod, and the final 


was five days before the death of Herod. See Joseph. Bell. Jud. τ. 88. 8; and 
compare above, p. 81, note 1. 

1 See Josephus, Antig. xvi. 6. 2, Bell. Jud. τ. 338.2. This was an outbreak 
caused by the harangues of two expounders of the law, Judas and Matthias, 
and resulted in the destruction of alarge golden eagle of considerable value 
which Herod had erected over the gate of the temple. From the tenor of the 
narrative (βασιλεὺς δὲ καταδήσας αὐτοὺς ἐξέπεμπεν eis ᾿Ιεριχοῦντα, § 8), 
and the subsequent oration in the theatre (comp. Antiqg. xv. 8.1), it would seem 
that Herod was at this time in Jerusalem. The date of the execution of these 
unhappy zealots, which probably almost immediately followed their apprehen- 
sion, can be fixed with certainty to the night of March 12—18 (a. U. ©. 750), as 
Josephus mentions that on the same night there was an eclipse of the moon 
(loc. cit. § 4). See Ideler, Handb. der Chronol. Vol. ii. p. 28, and comp. Wieseler, 
Chron. Synops.1. 2, p. 56. 

2 For some excellent critical remarks on the citation from Jeremiah in reference 
to Rachel weeping for her children, see Mill, Observations, 11. 8. 1, p. 402 sq.; 
and for a good sermon on the text, Jackson, Creed, Vol. vi. p. 277 (Oxf. 1844). 

8 It is distinctly mentioned by Josephus that this frantic tyrant had all the 
principal men of the nation summoned to him at Jericho and shut up in the 
hippodrome, and that he gave orders to his sister Salome and her husband 
Alexas to have them executed immediately he died, that as there would be no 
mourners for, there might be some αἵ, his death. Antiq. xvi. 6. 5. 

4 See Schlosser, Universalhistor. Uebers. der alten Welt, Part 111. 1, p. 261, 
referred to by Neander, Leben Jesu Chr. p. 45. For several questions connected 
with the murder of the Innocents, including some characteristically guarded 
remarks on their number, see Patritius, de Evang. Dissert. Xxx111. Part II. p. 
3875. 


Lecr. Il. OF OUR LORD. 85 


return to Nazareth. Warned by God in a dream of the 
death of Herod, Joseph at once’ brings back pits Viens 
the Holy Child and His mother; and thus, Judea. 
after a stay in Egypt of perhaps far fewer ree eae 
days? than Israel had there sojourned years, the word of 
ancient and hitherto unnoted prophecy receives its com- 
plete fulfilment,’ the mystic Israel comes up to the land 
of now more than promise,— out of Egypt 
God has called His Son. ἀμ 
To what exact place of abode the blessed Virgin and 
Joseph were now directing their steps is not spécially 
noticed by the Evangelist. We may, however, perhaps 
reasonably infer from St. Matthew’s Gospel that this home- 


1 If the remark made above (p. 83, note 2) be correct, the same inference must 
be made in the present case, that the heavenly command required a similar 
promptitude on the part of Joseph, and that the faithful guardian delayed not. 
We may observe, however, that it is now ἐγερϑεὶς παράλαβε καὶ πορεύου, not 
ἐγερϑεὶς παράλαβε καὶ pedey, asin ver.18. This did not escape the observation 
of Chrysostom. 

2 If the dates we have adopted are approximately correct, it would seem that 
little more than a fortnight elapsed between the flight into Egypt and the death 
of Herod, and that consequently we must conceive the stay in Egypt to have 
been comparatively short. Greswell, by adopting April, A.U.c. 750, as the date 
of the Nativity, and 751 a.u.c. as the death-year of Herod, is compelled to 
assume a stay there of about seven months. See Dissert. x11. Vol. ii. p. 392. 
The apocryphal writers still more enlarge this period (‘‘exacto vero triennio 
rediit ex Egypto,”’ Evang. Inf. Arab. cap. xxv1.; compare Pseudo-Matt. 
Evang. cap. XXVI.), almost evidently for the purpose of interpolating a series of 
miracles. 

8 This citation from ancient prophecy has been much discussed. Without 
entering into the detail of objections which have in many cases proved as frivo- 
lous as they are irreverent, we may observe, (1) that it seems certain that Hosea 
xi. 1 is the passage referred to. See Jerome in loc., Eusebius, Eclog. Proph. p. 
46 sq. (ed. Gaisford); and (2) that little doubt can be entertained that the catho- 
lic interpretation which makes Israel and the promised Seed stand in typical 
relations (ἐλέχϑη ἐπὶ τῷ λαῷ τυπικῶς, ἐξέβη δὲ εἰς τὸν Χριστὸν aAnSwas, — 
Theoph. in loc., in substance from Chrysostom) is no less true and correct than 
it is simple and natural. St. Matthew, as writing principally to Hebrew readers 
and to men who felt and knew that the nation to which they belonged was the 
truest and most veritable type of their Lord, specifies a passage which they had 
perhaps considered but simple history, but which, with the light of inspiration 
shed on it, assumes every attribute of mysterious, and, let us add, to them at any 
rate, of most persuasive prophecy. For further references and information, the 
reader may profitably consult Spanheim, Dub. Evang. Lx11.—Lxx. Part 1. p. 
474 sq., Deyling, Obs. Sacr. Vol. iv. p. 769, and Mill, on Panth. Principles, τι. 8. 
1, p. 409. 

8 


806 THE BIRTH AND INFANCY Lect. IL 


ward journey would have terminated at Bethlehem, — that 
new home now so dear to them from its many marvellous 
associations, that home which now might have seemed 
marked out to them by the very finger of God, had not 
the tidings which reached Joseph, that the evil son of an 
evil tather,| the Ethnarch Archelaus, was 
now ruling over Judea, made that faithful 
guardian afraid to return to a land so full of hatred and 
dangers. While thus, perhaps, in doubt and perplexity, 
the divine answer is vouchsafed to his anxieties,’ and 
Joseph and the Virgin are directed to return to the safer 
obscurity of their old home in the hills of Galilee; and the 
spirit of ancient prophecy again finds its fulfilment in the 
designation the Messiah receives from his earthly abode, 
“ He shall be called a Nazarene.”® 


Matt. ti. 22. 


1 The language of the Jewish deputies to Augustus fully justifies this remark: 
“he seemed to be so afraid,” they said, ‘‘ lest he should not be deemed Herod’s 
own son, that he took especial care to make his acts prove it.’”? See Joseph. 
Antiq. xvit. 11. 2. 

2 This seems to lie in the word xpnuatiodels (ver. 22). Though we may not 
perhaps safely, either here or ver. 12, or indeed in the New Testament generally, 
press the idea of a definite foregoing question, we may yet so far retain this 
usual meaning (χρηματίζει: ἀποκρίνεται, Suid.) as to regard the doubts and 
fears of Joseph as the practical question to which the divine answer was 
returned. See Suicer, Thesaur. s. vy. Vol. ii. p. 1521. 

3 The very use of the inclusive διὰ τῶν προφητῶν ought to prepare us to expect, 
what we find to be the case, that this is no citation from any particular prophet, 
but expresses the declarations of several: ‘ pluraliter prophetas vocando, Mat- 
thzeus ostendit non verba de Scripturis a se sumpta sed sensum.” — Jerome in loc. 
We seem justified then in assigning to the word Ναζωραῖος all the meanings 
legitimately belonging to it, by derivation or otherwise, which are concurrent 
with the declarations of the prophets in reference to our Lord. We may there- 
fore, both with the early Hebrew Christians (see Jerome) and apparently the 
whole Western Church, trace this prophetic declaration, (a) principally and pri- 
marily, in all the passages which refer to the Messiah under the title of the 
Branch ("53) of the root of Jesse (Isaiah xi. 1; compare Jerem. xxiii. 5, 
xxxiii. 15; Zech. vi. 11); (Ὁ) in the references to the circumstances of lowliness 
and obscurity under which that growth was to take place (comp. Isaiah 1111. 2); 
and perhaps further (c) in the prophetic notices of a contempt and rejection 
(Isaiah liii. 3), such as seems to have been the common and, as it would seem in 
many respects, deserved portion of the inhabitant of rude and ill-reputed Naza- 
reth. See above, p. 57, note 2, and for further information and illustrations, 
Spanheim, Dub. Evang. xc.—xcil. Part 11. p. 598 sq., Deyling, Obs. Sacr. Xu. 
Vol. i. p. 176, Patritius, de Evang. Dissert. xxxvil. Part 111. p. 406, Mill, 
Observations, ΤΙ. 8. 1, p. 422 sq. 


Lecr. II. OF OUR LORD. 81 


I must now at once bring this lecture to a close, yet 
not without two or three sentences of earnest exhortation 
to you, brethren, who form the younger portion of this 
audience. 

If there be ought in these &asty outlines of contested por- 
tions of Evangelical history that has arrested 
your attention, and deepened your convic- 
tions, I will pray to God that it may yet work more and 
more in your hearts, and lead you to feel that there is 
indeed a quick and living truth in every sentence of the 
blessed Gospel, and that they who read with a loving and 
reverential spirit shall find it in its fullest measures. O, 
pray fervently against the first motions of a spirit of doubt- 
ing and questioning. By those prayers which you learned 
at a mother’s knees, by that holy history which, perchance, 
you first heard from a mother’s lips, give not up the first 
child-like faith of earlier and it may be purer days, — that 
simple, heroic faith, which such men as Niebuhr? and Nean- 
der? knew how to appreciate and to glorify, even while 
they felt its fullest measures could never be their own. 
‘Remember that when faith grows cold love soon passes 
away, and hope soon follows it; and, O, believe me, that 
the world cannot exhibit a spectacle more utterly mourn- 


Conclusion. 


1 Τί must be regarded as very striking, that the great historian who could 
express himself with such strength and even bitterness of language against 
much that, however exaggerated it may have been in the case in question, was 
really fundamentally sound in pietism (see Letter ccLxxx.), could yet feel it 
right to educate his son in a way that must have led to the deepest reverence for 
the very letter of the inspired records. These are Niebuhr’s own words: “ΗΘ 
[his son] shall believe in the letter of the Old and New Testaments, and I shall 
nurture in him, from his infancy, a firm faith in all that I have lost, or feel 
uncertain about.” — Life and Letters, Vol. ii. p. 101 (Transl. 1852). 

2 After some comments on extreme views as to what is termed, not perhaps 
very correctly, ‘‘the o/d mechanical view of inspiration,” this thoughtful writer 
thus proceeds: ‘But this [existence of chasms in the Gospel history] only 

_affords room for the exercise of our faith,—a faith whose root is to be found, 
not in demonstration, but in the humble and self-denying submission of our 
spirits. Our scientific views may be defective in many points; our knowledge 
itself may be but fragmentary; but our religious interests will find all that is 
necessary to attach them to Christ as the ground of salvation and the archetype 
of holiness.” — Life of Jesus Christ, p. 9 (Bohn),:-—a paraphrastic, but substan- 
tially correct representation of the original. 


88 BIRTH AND INFANCY OF OUR LORD. Lect. IT. 


ful, more full of deepest melancholy, than a young yet 
doubting, afresh yet unloving, an eager yet hopeless and 
forsaken heart. 

May these humble words have wrought in you the con- 
viction, that if with a noble and loving spirit, 
like the Berzeans of old, we search the Scrip- 
tures, we shall full surely find, — yea, verily, that we who 
may go forth weeping to gather up the few scattered ears 
of truth that might seem all that historical scepticism 
~had now left us, shall yet return with joy, 

and bring with us the sheaves of accumulated 
convictions, and the plenitudes of assurance in the ever- 
lasting truth of every part and every portion of the Gos- 
pel of Jesus Christ. 


Acts xvii. 11. 


Ps. cxxvi. 6. 


LECTURE 111. 


THE EARLY JUDAZAN MINISTRY. 


AND JESUS INCREASED IN WISDOM AND STATURE, AND IN FAVOR WITH GOD 
AND MAN. — St. Luke ii. 52. 


In my last lecture, brethren, we concluded with that 
portion of the sacred narrative which briefly 
notices the return of the Holy Family to gow taacie 
Nazareth, and the fulfilment of the spirit of - 
ancient prophecy in the Redeemer of the world being 
called a Nazarene. Between that event and the group of 
events which will form the subject of this afternoon’s lec- 
ture, and which make up what may be termed our Lord’s 
early Judzean ministry, one solitary occurrence is recorded 
in the Gospel narrative,— our Lord’s second appearance 
in the Temple at Jerusalem, his second presentation in His 
Father’s house. ‘ 

With the single exception of the notice of this deeply 
interesting event, the whole history of the 
Saviour’s childhood, youth, and even early κυρ δ ον 
manhood, is passed over by all the Evangel- 
ists with a most solemn reserve. Even he of them who 
appears to have received so much, directly or indirectly, 
from the blessed Virgin herself? and from whom we might 
have expected some passing notices of that mysterious 
childhood, — even he would seem to have been specially 
moved to seal all in silence, and to relate no more than 
this one event which marks the period when the Holy One 
was just passing the dividing line between childhood and 


1 See the remarks above, p. 29, note 5. 


8* 


90 THE EARLY JUDHAN MINISTRY. | Lect. IIL. 


youth. Both periods, that preceding and that succeeding 
this epoch, are described: in two short verses, 
closely similiar in expression, and tending 
alike to show that the outward and earthly development 
_ of our Redeemer was in strict accordance with those laws 
by which those He came to save pass from childhood into 
youth, and from youth into mature age! 

In regard of the first period, that of the childhood, one 

iene ie short clause iS graciously added to warn us 
of owr Lord's child from unlicensed musings upon the influences 

of outward things upon the Holy Child,?— 

ἜΝ one clause only, but enough,—“and the 

grace of God was upon Him.” 

In regard of the second period, that of the Lord’s youth 
and early manhood, one event at its commencement, which 
shows us how that grace unfolded itself in heavenly wis- 


Luke it. 40 and 52. 


1 It is well said by Cyril of Alexandria: ‘“‘ Examine, I pray you, closely the 
profoundness of the dispensation; the Word endures to be born in human 
fashion, although in His divine nature He has no beginning, nor is subject to 
time. He, who as God is all-perfect, submits to bodily growth: the Incorporeal 
has limbs that advance to the ripeness of manhood. ... The wise Evangelist did 
not introduce the Word in His abstract and incorporate nature, and so say of 
Him that He increased in stature and wisdom and grace, but, after having 
shown that He was born in the flesh of a woman, and took our likeness, he then 
assigns to Him these human attributes, and calls Him a child, and says that he 
waxed in stature, as His body grew little by little, in obedience to corporeal 
laws.’ — Comment. on Luke, Part τ. p. 29, 80 (Transl.). So, too, Origen: ‘“ Et 
crescebat, inquit, humiliaverat enim se, formam servi accipiens, et eadem virtute 
qua se humiliaverat, crescit.”” — In Luc. Hom. x1x. Vol. iii. p. 953 (ed. Bened.). 

2 On this subject see more below, p. 99 sq. Meanwhile, we may justly record 
our protest against the way in which a most serious and profound question is 
now usually discussed, and the repulsive freedom which many modern writers, 
not only in Germany, but even in this country, permit themselves to assume 
when alluding to the mental development of the Holy Child. See, for example, 
the highly objectionable remarks of Hase (Leben Jesu, § 81, p. 56),.in which this 
writer plainly tells us at the outset that ‘“‘the spiritual development of Jesus 
depended on fortunate gifts of nature” (glicklichen Naturgaben); and that 
these, though enhanced by the purposes and circumstances of His after-life, still 
never went beyond the culture of the time and country, and never ‘ transcended 
the limits of humanity.”?> Compare, too, Von Ammon, Leben Jesu, 1. 10, Vol. 
i. p. 236, where the highly questionable views of Theodorus of Mopsuestia find a 
ready defender; and for an example from writers of our country of eloquent 
and attractive but still painfully humanitarian comments on this mysterious 
subject, see Robertson, Sermons, Vol. ii. p. 196. 


Lect. ΠῚ. THE EARLY JUDHAN MINISTRY. ΘΙ 


dom,! is made fully known to us,—one event, but one 
only, to which one«short verse, that of our 

i Equally brief no- 
text, is added, to teach us how that wisdom _ tice of our Lora’s 
waxed momently more full, more deep, more ὍΝ 
broad, until, like some mighty river seeking the sea, it 
merged insensibly into the omniscience of 
His limitless Godhead.? One further touch 
completes the divine picture, —“in favour with God and 


Luke ti. 52. 


1 On this subject the following are the sentiments of Gregory of Nazianzus: 
«(Ἢ was making advance, as in stature so also in wisdom and grace. Not by 
these qualities receiving increase,—for what can be more perfect than that 
which is so from the very beginning? — but by their being disclosed and revealed 
by little and little.” — Orat. xx. p. 848 (Paris, 1609). It may, however, be justly 
doubted whether these statements, — especially the negative assertion, —though 
confessedly in close accordance with some expressions of Athanasius (προκόπ- 
τοντος τοῦ σώματος προέκοπτεν ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ ἣ φανέρωσις τῆς Θεότητος τοῖς 
ὁρῶσιν. Adv. Arian. 111. 29. 14), and other orthodox writers, are not unduly 
restricted, and whether the words of the inspired Evangelist do not clearly 
imply (to use the language of Waterland) that our Lord’s increase in wisdom is 
to be understood in a sense as ‘‘ literal, as His increasing in stature is literal” 
(Script. and Arians Compared, Vol. iii. p. 298). While then with these catholic 
writers we may certainly acknowledge a gradual and progressive disclosure of 
the Lord’s divine wisdom, we must certainly, with other equally catholic writers, 
recognize a regular development and increase in the wisdom and grace of the 
reasonable soul, ὁ. e., —to speak with psychological accuracy, of the ψυχὴ and 
νοῦς, the true and complete statement being, —‘‘Christum secundum sapien- 
tiam divinam, hoe est eam, que ei competit tanquam Deo, non profecisse: 
secundum sapientiam autem humanam, hoc est eam, que ei ut homini competit, 
vere profecisse, hominis quidem more, sed tamen supra modum humanum.” — 
Suicer, Thes. Vol. ii. Ὁ. 269 (appy. from Bernh. de Consid. Book 11.). In a word, 
then, as Cyril of Alexandria (in loc.) briefly says, ‘‘ the body advances in stature 
and the [reasonable] soul in wisdom.’”? See Ambrose, de Incarn. cap. 72 sq. Vol. 
ii. 1, Ὁ. 887 (ed. Migné), Epiphanius, Her. uxxvit. 26, Vol. i. p. 1019 (Paris, 1622), 
and the good note of the Oxford Translator (J. H. Newman) of Athanasius, 
Select Treatises, Disc. 111. Part 11. p. 474 (Libr. of Fathers). 

2 This simile, though merely intended to illustrate generally a profound mys- 
tery, and not to be pressed with dogmatic exactness, is still, as it would seem, 
substantially correct. The fact of the present verse (Luke ii. 52) being one of 
those urged by the heretical sect of the Agnoetz, as tending to show limitations 
even in our Lord’s divine nature, was not improbably the cause of its having 
received some interpretations (see above) so rigid, as to favor by inference the 
Apollinarian statement that the Word itself was in the place of νοῦς (Pearson, 
Creed, Vol. ii. p. 122, ed. Burton). The whole subject, and a scholastic discus- 
sion, ‘‘ de Christi scientia et nescientia et profectu secundum humanitatem,” will 
be found in Forbes, Instruct. Hist.-Theol. Book 11. ch. 19, 20. See Petav. 
Dogm. Theol. (de Incarn. Xi. 2) Vol. vi. p. 89, Suicer, Thesaur. s. v. Λόγος, Vol. 
ii. p. 268, and the sensible remarks of Boyse on our Lord’s omniscience, Vindic. 
of our Saviour’s Deity, Vol. ii. p. 23 sq. (Lond. 1728). 


92 THE EARLY σ᾽ ΑΝ MINISTRY. Leov. III. 


man,” perchance designed to hint to us that the out- 
ward form corresponded to the inner development, that 
the fulness of heavenly wisdom dwelt in a shrine of out- 
ward perfection and beauty,’ and that the ancient tradi- 
tion,” which assigned no form or comeliness to “the fairest 


1 Upon this point, it need scarcely be said, nothing certain can be adduced. 
From the Gospels we seem to be able to infer that our Lord’s outward form, on 
one occasion at least, sensibly struck the beholders with a feeling of the 
majesty and dignity of Him who condescended to wear the garments of our 
mortality. Compare John xviii. 6. Perhaps, however, we may go so far as to 
say, that there was still nothing that merely outwardly marked the Redeemer 
of the world as strikingly different from the general aspect of the men of his 
own time and country, otherwise it would seem strange that the Apostles who 
beheld him by the lake of Gennesareth, and to whom He was near enough to 
be easily heard (John xxi. 4 sq.), did not instantly recognize who it was. The 
similar failure of recognition in the case of the two disciples going to Emmaus 
(Luke xxiv. 13 sq.) can perhaps hardly be urged, owing to the Evangelist’s own 
remark (ver. 16), and the further illustrative comment of St. Mark (ev ἑτέρᾳ 
μορφῆ, ch. xvi. 12). This, perhaps, is all that can safely be urged. The more dis- 
tinct descriptions of our Lord’s appearance, especially those in the Zpistle of 
Lentulus (see Fabricius, Codex Apocr. N. T. Vol. i. p. 801 sq.), and the very simi- 
Jar one of Epiphanius Monachus (p. 29, ed. Dressel, —and cited by Winer, RWB. 
Art. “Jesus,” Vol. i. p. 576, after a better text supplied to him by Tischendorf), 
appear clearly to be due to the imagination and conceptions of the writers. The 
statue of our Lord said by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. vit. 18) to have been erected at 
Cesarea Philippi by the woman with tke issue of blood (Matt. ix. 20), might per- 
haps be urged as showing that our Lord’s appearance was not unknown to the 
early Church, if it did not appear probable from historical considerations that 
the statue in question really never represented our Lord, and was never erected 
under the alleged circumstances. See the *‘ Excursus’’ of Heinichen, in his edi- 
tion of Eusebius, ἢ. #., Vol. iii. p. 396 sq. The student who is anxious to pursue 
further this interesting but not very profitable subject, will find abundant notices 
in Winer, RWB. Vol. i. p. 576, and especially in Hase, Leben Jesu, ὃ 34, p. 62 sq. 
(ed. 3), Hofmann, Leben Jesu, ὃ 67, p. 292 sq.; and may consult the special work 
of Reiske, de Imaginibus Christi (Jen. 1685). Some curious remarks of Origen in 
reference to a supposed diversity in our Lord’s appearance to different persons, 
will be found in the Latin translation of that great writer’s commentaries on 
Matt. § 100, Vol. iii. p. 906 (ed. Bened.), Comp. Norton, Genuineness of Gospels, 
Vol. ii. p. 274 (ed. 2). 

2 See Justin Martyr, Trypho, cap. 14, Vol. ii. p. 52 (ed. Otto): Tay τε λόγων 
τούτων καὶ τοιούτων, εἰρημένων ὑπὸ τῶν προφητῶν, “ἔλεγον ὦ Τρύφων, οἱ μὲν 
εἴρηνται εἰς τὴν πρώτην παρουσίαν τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἐν ἣ καὶ ἄτιμος καὶ ἂει δὴ ς 
καὶ ϑνητὸς φανήσεσϑαι κεκηρυγμένος ἐστίν, οἱ δὲ εἰς τὴν δευτέραν αὐτοῦ 
παρουσίαν. So still more distinctly Clem. Alex. Pedag. 111. 1. 8: Τὸν δὲ Κύριον 
αὐτὸν τὴν ὕψιν αἰσχρὸν γεγονέναι διὰ Ἡσαΐου το Πνεῦμα μαρτυρεῖ. Compare 
Strom. 111. 17. 108, Orig. Cels. v1. p. 827 (ed. Spencer), — where the concession is 
made to Celsus, and Tertull. de Carne Chr. cap. 9, adv. Jud. cap. 14. This 
opinion, however, soon began to be modified. See Augustine, Serm. CXXXVIII. 
Vol. vy. p. 766 (ed. Migné), and Jerome, Lpist. Lxv. Vol. i. p. 880 (ed. Vall.), who 
well remarks, —‘‘ Nisi habuisset et in vultu quiddam oculisque sidereum, nun- 


Lect. III. THE EARLY JUDHAN MINISTRY. 93 


of the children of men,’! was but a narrow and unworthy 
application of the merely general terms of 
Isaiah’s prophecy. 

Thus waxing strong in spirit and in the grace of His 
heavenly Father, the Holy Child, when ΕΠ, 
twelve years old, goes up with both his pa- pie when twelve 
rents to the Passover at Jerusalem, not, how- ““”"°"” 
ever, aS a worshipper, nor as yet even what Hebrew phra- 
seology has termed a “Son of the Law,” though possibly 
as a partaker in some preparatory rite which ancient cus- 
tom might have associated with that age of commencing 
puberty, We observe that it is incidentally noticed that 
the blessed Virgin, not only on this occasion, 
but every year, went up with Joseph to the 
great festival of her nation. Like Hannah Οἱ Sin ® 0) 
of old, year after year, though compelled 
neither by law nor by custom,’ she might have longed to 


Ch. litt. 3. 


Luke τὶ. 41. 


‘ 


quam eum statim secuti fuissent Apostoli, nec qui ad comprehendendum eum 
venerant, corruissent.” 

1 Chrysostom rightly urges this indirect prophecy: Οὐδὲ yap ϑαυματουργῶν 
ἣν ϑαυμαστὸς μόνον, ἀλλὰ Kal φαινόμενος πολλῆς ἔγεμε χάριτος, Kal τοῦτο 6 
προφήτης δηλῶν ἔλεγεν: ‘Qpatos κάλλει παρὰ τοὺς υἱοὺς τῶν ἀνϑ)ρώπων. 
Hom. in Matt. xv1i1. 2, Vol. vii. p. 871 (ed. Bened.). 

2 This perhaps is the critically exact statement, as it would certainly seem that 
the age of puberty was not considered as actually attained till the completion of 
the thirteenth year. See Jost, Geschichte des Judenth. 111. 3. 11, Vol. i. p. 398 
(where the statement of Ewald is rectified); and compare Greswell, Dissert. XII. 
Vol. i. p. 896, and ἐδ. xviir. Vol. ii. p. 186. It has been doubted, then, whether 
on this occasion our Lord was taken up to celebrate the festival, or whether it 
was merely to appear before the Lord in company with His parents, and perhaps 
take part in some introductory ceremony. The patristic commentators (6. g. 
Cyril Alex. ‘upon the summons of the feast,” Part 1. p. 80, and probably Ori- 
gen, Hom. in Luc. X1x.) appear rather to advocate the former opinion, and 
would lead us to think that our Lord, either in compliance with the wishes of 
_His parents, or more probably in accordance with His own desire (comp. ver. 
49), attended the festival as an actual worshipper. The latter opinion, however, 
seems most correct, and most in accordance with what we know of Jewish cus- 
toms. See Greswell, /. c. Vol. i. p. 897. The rule appears to have been that all 
males were to attend the three great festivals, ‘‘ Exceptis surdo, stulto, puerulo 

. puerulus autem ille dicitur, qui, nisi a patre manu trahatur incedere non 
valet.” — Bartolocci, Biblioth. Rabbin. Vol. iii. p. 132. Compare Lightfoot, Hor. 
Hebr. (in loc.) p. 499 (Roterod. 1686). 

8 See the very distinct quotation adduced by Schoettgen (Hor. Heb. Vol. i. p. 

266), from which it would appear that the injunction of Hillel, that women 


94 THE EARLY 0 ΑΝ MINISTRY. Lect. III. 


enter into the more immediate presence of the God of 
Israel, and, though but dimly conscious of the eventful 
future, might have felt with each revolving year a mys- 
terious call to that Festival, of which the Holy Child 
beside her was hereafter to be the Lamb and the sacrifice. 

After the paschal solemnities were celebrated, most 

hs a oh probably on the afternoon of the eighth day,! 
discovery of the the Virgin and Joseph turn their steps back- 
Fe Seno wards to Galilee,—but alone. They deem 
the Holy Child was in another portion of the large pil- 
grim-company, — perhaps with contemporaries to whom, 
after the solemnities they had shared in, ancient custom 
might have assigned a separate place in the festal caravan,? 
and they doubt not that at their evening resting-place 
among the hills of Benjamin (not improbably that Beeroth 
which tradition has fixed upon),? they shall be sure to find 


should once attend the passover, was not binding, and indeed self-contradictory. 
Such a habit on the part of the blessed Virgin must be referred to her piety. 
Schoettgen quotes from the tract, ‘‘ Mechilta,” a similar instance in the case of 
the wife of Jonah, —‘‘ Uxor Jonz ascendit ad celebranda festa solemnia” (doc. 
cit.). 

1 It has been correctly observed by Lightfoot (Hor. Hebr. in loc. p. 740), that 
the expression τελειωσάντων Tas ἡμέρας (Luke ii. 48) seems certainly to imply 
that the Holy Family staid the full time of seven days at Jerusalem. During 
this time it is not improbable that the youthful Saviour had been observed by 
some of the members of the venerable assemblage among whom he was subse- 
quently found. Perhaps even, with Euthymius, we might further attribute the 
Lord's prolonged stay to a desire to consort longer with those on whom the 
words of grace and wisdom which fell from His lips could not but have produced 
a startling and perhaps long-remembered effect: ὑπέμεινε δέ, εἴτουν ὑπελείφϑη 
ἐν Ἱερουσαλήμ, βουλόμενος συμμίξαι τοῖς διδασκάλοις (Vol. ii. p. 279, ed. 
Matt.). 

2 Greswell urges, on the authority of Maimonides (de Sacrif. Pasch. 11. 4), that 
a paschal company could not be composed of ‘‘ pueri impuberes.”? This would 
seem certainly correct (comp. AZishna, ‘ Pesachim,” vir. 4, p. 118 of De Sola’s 
transl.); but it does not seem to militate against the assumption in the text, that 
in returning a separate company might be formed of those who had gone 
through the preliminary ceremony which Maimonides himself seems to allude 
to. Comp. de Sacr. Solemn. 11. 8 (cited by Greswell, Vol. i. p. 397). 

3 The usual resting-place for the night appears to have been Sichem, which, 
though in Samaria, was not forbidden as a temporary station: ‘“‘ Terra Samarita- 
norum munda est, et fontes mundi, et mansiones mundz,” Valm. Hieros. ‘‘ Abo- 
dah Zarah,” fol. 44. 4, cited by Sepp, Leben Christi, Vol. ii. p. 45. But tradition 
and probability appear to prevail in favor of Beer or Beeroth, a place distant, 


Lzcr. III. THE EARLY JUDMAN MINISTRY. 95 


Him. But they find Him not. Full of trouble, they turn 
backwards to Jerusalem; a day is spent in anxious search, 
perhaps among the travelling companies which would now 
in fast succession be returning homeward from the Holy 
City; yet another day they search in vain.!. On the third 
they find the Holy Child, but in what an unexpected 
place, and under circumstances how mysterious and un- 
looked-for. In the precincts of the temple, most probably 
in one of the rooms? where, on Sabbath days and at the 
great festivals, the Masters of Israel sat and taught, they 
find Him they had so long sought for. They find Him 
sitting in the midst of that venerable circle; 

sitting,’ yet at no Gamaliel’s feet, but, as the 

words would seem to imply, spontaneously raised to a 
position of equal dignity; not the hearer only, but the 
indirect teacher by the divine depth of His mysteri- 
ous questions.* No wonder that the Evangelist should 


Luke ii. 46, 


according to Robinson (Palest. Vol. i. p. 452), about three hours from Jerusalem. 
Comp. Winer, RWB. s. v. “ Beer,” Vol. i. p. 146. 

1 The exact manner in which the time specified was spent has been differently 
estimated. It seems most reasonable to suppose that one day was spent in the 
return and search on the road, a second in fruitless search in Jerusalem, and 
that on the third the Holy Child was found. The remark of Bengel is curious: 
‘“‘ Tres. Numerus mysticus. Totidem dies mortuus a discipulis pro amisso habi- 
tug est.” If there be anything in this, we might feel disposed to adopt rather 
the view of Euthymius: ‘‘ One day they spent, when they went a day’s journey 
and sought for Him among their kinsfolk and acquaintance; a second, when, in 
consequence of not having found Him, they returned to Jerusalem seeking Him;. 
in the course of the third day they at length found Him.” — Comment. on Luke 
ii. 44. The expression hed ἡμέρας τρεῖς seems, however, rather in favor of the 
first view. Comp. Meyer in loc. 

2 We learn from the Talmudic gloss cited by Lightfoot (in Joc.), that there was 
no Synagogue ὁ’ near the court, in the mountain of the Temple.” Comp. Dey- 
ling, Obs. Sacr. xxx. Vol. iii. p. 288, Reland, Antig. 1. 8.6. Here, or in one of 
the many buildings attached to the Temple, apparently on its eastern side, we 
may conceive the Holy Child to have been found. See Sepp, Leben Chr. τ. 16, 
Vol. ii. p. 47, and Jost, Gesch. des Judenth. 11. 1. 2, Vol. i. p. 140. 

8 The Talmudic statement, cited by Lightfoot, that scholars did not sit, but 
stand (“a diebus Mosis ad Rabban Gamalielem non didicerunt legem nisi 
stantes,” ‘“Megillah,” fol. 21. 1), is apparently untenable (see Vitringa, de 
Synag. Vol. i. p. 167), and not to be pressed in the present passage. The words 
καδεζόμενον ἐν μέσῳ τῶν διδασκάλων seem, however, to bear out the view 
adopted in the text, and are so interpreted by De Wette in Joc. 

4 This is the patristic and, as it would seem, correct statement of the exact 


96 THE EARLY JUDHAN MINISTRY. Lecr. UL 


tell us that His parents when they saw Him “were 
amazed ;” no wonder that even the holy 
mother when she gazed on that august as- 
semblage, when she saw, as she perchance might have seen,} 
the now aged Hillel the looser, and Shammai the binder,? 
and the wise sons of Betirah, and Rabban Simeon, Hillel’s 
son, and Jonathan the paraphrast, the greatest of his pupils, 
— when she saw these, and such as these, all hanging on the 
questions of the Divine Child, no wonder that she forgot 
all in the strange and unlooked-for circumstances in which 
she found Him she had so sorrowingly sought 
for. All the mother speaks out in her half- 
reproachful address,’ all the consciously incarnate Son in 


Luke ii. 48. 


Luke ii. 49. 


relation in which the Holy Child now stood to those around Him: “ Quia par- 
vulus erat, invenitur in medio non eos docens, sed interrogans et hoc pro etatis 
officio, ut nos doceret, quid pueris, quamvis sapientes et eruditi sint, conveniret, 
ut audiant potius magistros, quam docere desiderent, et se varia ostentatione 
non jactent. Interrogabat inqguam magistros, non ut aliquid disceret, sed ut 
interrogans erudiret.”’ — Origen, in Luc. Hom. x1x. Vol. iii. p. 955 (ed. Bened.). 
“Those very questions,” says Bp. Hall, were ‘‘ instructions, and meant to teach.”’ 
Contempl. 11. 1. The view taken by Bp. Taylor (Life of Christ, 1.7), that the 
present exhibition of learning was little short of miraculous, seems far less nat- 
ural, and less consonant with the tenor of the sacred text. 

1 The names mentioned in the text belong to men who are known to have 
been alive at the time, and who occupied conspicuous places among the circle of 
Jewish Doctors. For further information respecting those here specified, see 
Sepp, Leben Christi, 1.17, Vol. ii. p. 47 sq., and the notices of Petrus Galatinusg 
de Arcan. Cath. Ver. cap. 2. 8, p. 5 sq. (Francof. 1602). There may be some 
doubt about Hillel being still alive; but if our assumed date of this event (A.U.o. 
762) is correct, and the dates supplied by Sepp (Joc. cit.) are to be relied on, we 
seem justified in believing that that venerable teacher was one of those thus 
preéminently blessed. 

2 “Shammai ligat, Hillel solvit.”. Comp. Lightfoot, in Matt. xvi. 19, p. 378. 
For an account of the general principles of teaching respectively adopted by 
these celebrated men and their followers, see Jost, Gesch. des Judenth. 11. 3. 18, 
Vol. i. p. 257 sq. 

3 The prominence which the Virgin-mother gives to the relation she bore to 
the Holy One that vouchsafed to be born of her can hardly be accidental, — 
τέκνον TL ἐποίησας ἡμῖν οὕτως, ver. 48. The emphatic position of the πρὸς 
αὐτὸν might also almost lead us so far to agree with Bp. Hall (“it is like that 
she reserved this question till she had Him alone,” Contempl. 11. 1) as to think 
that it was addressed to the Divine Child in tones that might not have been 
heard, or intended to have been heard, by those around. ΑἸ] the patristic exposi- 
tors comment on the use of the term of γονεῖς αὐτοῦ, and 6 πατήρ cov in refer- 
ence to Joseph, and none perhaps with more point than Origen: ‘‘ Nec miremur 
parentes vocatos, quorum altera ob partum, alter ob obsequium, patris et matris 


Lect. II. THE EARLY JUDHAN MINISTRY. 97 


the mysterious simplicity of the answer, that reminds the 
earthly mother that it was in the courts of His heavenly 
Father’s house? that the Son must needs be found, that 
His true home was in the temple of Him whose glories 
still lingered round the heights of Moriah. And yet 
with what simple pathos is it noticed by the Evangelist 
that “He went down, and came to Nazareth, 
wd was subject to them.” As that Holy 
One left the glories of heaven to tabernacle with men, so 
now in retrospective shadow and similitude he leaves the 
blessedness of His Father’s temple for the humble home 
of earthly parents, and remains with them as the loving 
and submissive son, the sharer, perhaps, in His reputed 
father’s earthly labors,’ the consoler, and perchance sup- 
porter, of the widowed Virgin after the righteous son of 
Jacob, who henceforth appears no more in the history, had 
been called away to his rest.’ 


Ver. δ]. 


meruerunt vocabula.”—Jn Luc. Hom. x1x. Vol. iii. p. 955 (ed. Bened.). So 
Augustine, though with a further and deeper reference: ‘“‘ Propter quoddam 
cum ejus matre sanctum et virginale conjugium, etiam ispse [Joseph] parens 
Christi meruit appellari.”— Contr. Faust. Manich. 111. 2, Vol. iii. p. 214 (ed. 
Migné). 

1 The exact meaning of the words ἐν Tots τοῦ πατρός μου has been differently 
estimated. Common usage (see exx. in Lobeck, Phrynicus, p. 100), and still 
more the idea of locality, which would seem naturally involved in an answer to 
the preceding notice of the search that had been made, may incline us to the 
gloss of Euthymius,—év τῷ οἴκῳ τοῦ πατρός μου. So also the Peshito-Syriac 
and Armenian versions; the Vulgate, Coptic, and Gothic are equally indeter- 
minate with the original. 

2 This statement is perhaps partially supported by Mark vi. 8, οὐχ οὗτός ἐστιν 
6 τέκτων, ---- ὃ reading which, even in spite of the assertion of Origen in reply 
to Celsus, that our Lord is never described in the four Gospels as a carpenter 
(Contr. Cels. νι. 36), must certainly be retained. See Tischendorf, in loc. When 
we add to this the old tradition preserved by Justin Martyr (Trypho, cap. 88), 
that our Lord made “ ploughs, yokes, and other implements pertaining to hus- 
bandry,” we seem fully warranted in believing that our Redeemer vouchsafed to 
set to us this further example of humility and dutiful love. The silly legends of 
the apocryphal gospels hardly deserve to be noticed. See, however, Evang. 
Thom. cap. 11, Evang. Inf. Arab. cap. 88, 39. 

3 See above, p. 65, note 2. According to a simple comparison of two passages 
in the apocryphal Historia Josephi (cap. 14, 15), this took place in the eighteenth 
year of our Lord. Upon such authority, however, no further reliance can be 
placed than, perhaps, as the expression of a belief in the early Church that 
Joseph did not, as Ambrose seems distinctly to imply (de Instit. Virg. cap, 7, 


9 


98 THE EARLY JUDHAN MINISTRY. Lecr. I 


And this is the narrative, this narrative so simple and 
so true, in which modern scepticism has fan- 

Of the shui, ied it ean detect inconsistencies and incon- 
wed gant Me oruities. And yet what is there so strange, 
what so inconceivable? Does the age of the 

Holy Child seem to preclude the possibility of such contact 
with the Masters of Israel, when the historian Josephus, 
as he himself tells us,? was actually consulted by the high 
priests and the principal men of the city at an age but 
little more advanced than that of the youthful Saviour? 
Are we to admit such precocity in the case of the son of 
Matthias and deny it in that of the Son of God? Or, 
again, is the assumed neglect of the parents to be urged 
against the credibility of the narrative,* when we know 
so utterly nothing of the arrangement of these travelling 
companies, or of the bands and groupings into which, on 
such solemn occasions as the present, custom might have 
divided the returning worshippers? But I will not pause 
on such shallow and hapless scepticism; I will not do such 
dishonor to the audience before which I stand as to assume 
that it is necessary for me to make formal replies to such 


Vol. ii. 1, p. 318, ed. Migné), survive our Lord, or even the times of His public 
ministry. 

1 For some notices of these objections, see Ebrard, Kritik der Evang. Gesch. § 
50, p. 247. : 

2 ‘* Moreover, when I was a child,” says the historian, ‘‘and about fourteen 
years of age, 1 was commended by all for the love I had to learning; on which 
account the high priests and principal men of the city came then frequently to 
me together, in order to know my opinion about the accurate understanding of 
points of the law.’’— Life, ch. 2, Vol. 1. p. 2 (Whiston’s transl.). Such a state- 
ment would seem inconceivable, if it were not remembered that so much, espe- 
cially of interpretation of the law, turned on opinion and modes of reasoning, 
rather than on accumulations of actual learning. See especially Wotton, Dis- 
courses, ch. Iv. Vol. i. p. 24 sq. 

3 Much has been said by a certain class of writers about the want of proper 
care for the Holy Child previously evinced by Joseph and Mary. Such remarks 
are as untenable as they are clearly designed to be mischievous. Even Hase 
remarks that the Lord’s staying behind in Jerusalem is perfectly conceivable 
without attributing any carelessness to His parents. Leben Jesu, § 30, p. 55. 
Comp. Tholuck, Glaubwird, p. 214 sq. Bede (in loc. Vol. iii. p. 849, ed. Migné) 
suggests that the women and men returned in different bands, and that Joseph 
and Mary each thought that the Holy Child was with the other. This, however, 
seems “ argutius quam verius dictum.” 


Lecr. III. THE EARLY JUDHAN MINISTRY. 99 


unmerited cavillings. I will only presume to make this 
one mournful comment,—that if a narrative like the 
present, so full as it is of life-like touches, so exquisitely 
natural in its details, and so strangely contrasted with the 
silly fictions of the Apocryphal Infancies,\—if such a 
narrative as this is to be regarded as legendary or myth- 
ical, then we may indeed shudderingly recognize what is 
meant by the “evil heart of unbelief,” what 
it is to have that mind that will excogitate 
doubts where the very instinctive feelings repudiate them, 
and will disbelieve where disbelief becomes plainly mon- 
strous and revolting. 

And now eighteen years of the Redeemer’s earthly life 
pass silently away ;? a deep veil falls over that 
mysterious period, which even loving and pas be ae 
inquiring antiquity has not presumed to raise, 77 cgi as 
save in regard to the brief notice of the 
Saviour’s earthly calling to which an early writer has 
alluded,? and to which both national custom and the 


δῦ. it. 12. 


1 The simple evangelical narrative of our Lord’s interview with the Doctors 
has, as we might have imagined, called forth not a few apocryphal additions. 
These will be found in the Evang. Infant. Arab. cap. 50—52, pp. 199, 200 (ed. 
Tisch.). 

2 This would seem the place, in accordance with the arrangement in the Gos- 
pel of St. Luke, for making a few comments on the genealogies of our Lord as 
recorded in this Gospel and that of St. Matthew. Into this difficult subject, 
however, it does not seem desirable to enter, further than to remark for the 
benefit of the general reader, (a) that the most exact recent research tends dis- 
tinctly to prove the correctness of the almost universally received ancient 
opinion, that both are the genealogies of our Lord’s reputed father ; (Ὁ) that the 
genealogy of St. Matthew is not according to lineal descent, but according to 
the line of regal succession from Solomon, and that, in accordance with 
national and scriptural usage, and possibly for the sake of facilitating memory 
(Mill, p. 105), it is recorded in an abridged and alsosymmetrical form; (c) that the 
genealogy of St. Luke exhibits the natural descent from David through Nathan; 
(4) that the two genealogies can be reconciled with one another, and with the 
genealogy of the house of David preserved in the Old Testament. Fora com- 
plete substantiation of these assertions, see Mill, Obs. on Pantheistic Principles, 
Ir. 2. 1, 2, p. 101 sq., Hervey (Lord A.) Genealogies of our Lord (Cambr. 1858); 
and compare August. de Diversis Quest. LXI. Vol. vi. p. 50, and contra Faust, 
Manich. 111. 1 sq. Vol. viii. p. 214 sq. 

3 See above, p. 97, note 2. 


100 THE EARLY JUDMAN MINISTRY. Lect. IIL. 


examples of the greatest teachers, Hillel not excepted,! 
lend considerable plausibility. 
On this silence much has been said into which it is here 
not necessary to enter. Instead of pensive 
fuer ihe alee and mistaken longings, it should be to us a 
ea subject of rejoicing and thankfulness that in 
this particular portion of the sacred history 
Scripture has assumed to itself its prerogative of solemn 
reserve.” Think only, brethren, how the narrative of 
simple events of that secluded childhood would have been 
dealt with by the scoffer and the sceptic. Nay, pause to 
think only what an effect it might have had even on the 
better portion of Christianity; how our weak and carnal 
hearts might have dwelt merely on the human side of the 
events related, and how hard it might have seemed to 
have realized the incarnate God in the simple incidents 
of that early life of duty and love. I ground this obser- 
vation on the very suggestive fact recorded by St. John, 
eee aie that our Lord’s brethren “ did not believe on 
Him.” However these words may be inter- 
preted; whether the word “believe” is to be taken in a 
more general or more restricted sense; whether the 
brethren be regarded as sons of the Virgin, or, as I 
humbly believe them to be, sons of Mary her sister,* affects 


1 For numerous citations from the Rabbinical writers confirming the above 
statement, see Sepp, Leben Christi, 1. 19, Vol. ii. p. 59 sq. The quotation in refer- 
ence to Hillel is as follows: *‘ Num forte pauperior eras Hillele? Dixerunt de 
Hillele seniore quod singulis diebus laborabat, conductus mercede mummi.’? — 
Tract ‘* Joma,” fol. 36.1. Compare Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr. p. 444. 

2 A brief discussion of the question why so great a portion of our Redeemer’s 
life is thus passed over, will be found in Spanheim, Dub. Evang. Xovi. Part 11. 
Ῥ. 651. The contrast between this holy silence on the part of the Evangelists, 
and the circumstantial and often irreverent narratives of some of the apocryphal 
gospels, especially the Pseudo-Matt. Evangelium and the Evang. Infant. 
Arabicum), is singularly striking and suggestive. See further comments, in 
Camb. Essays, 1856, p. 156 sq. 

8 Upon this vexed question we will here only pause to remark, that the whole - 
subject seems to narrow itself to a consideration of the apparently opposite 
deductions that have been made from two important texts. On the one hand, 
if we rest solely on the rigid meaning of the word ἐπίστευον in John vii. 5, and 
regard οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ as including all so designated, it would certainly seem 


Lect. III. THE EARLY JUDHAN MINISYRY. 101 


our present argument but little. This momentous fact 
these words do place before us, that some of those who 
stood in the relation of kinsmanship and affinity to the 
Saviour, who saw Him as the familiar eye saw Him, were 
among the latest to acquire the fullest measures of faith. 
Though so many blessed opportunities were vouchsafed to 
them of seeing the glory of God shining through the veil 
of mortal flesh, yet they saw it not. Their eyes so rested 
on the outward tabernacle that they beheld not the 
Schechinah within. The material and familiar was a 
hinderance to their recognition of the spiritual,— a hinder- 
ance, be it not forgotten, which in their case was ulti- 
mately removed,! but a hinderance, in the case of those 
who could not have their advantages, which might never 
have been removed, an obstacle to a true acknowledgment 


to follow that none of them could be apostles, and that consequently James the 
brother of the Lord was not identical with James the son of Alpheus. On the 
other hand, if we adopt the only Sound grammatical interpretation which the 
words of Gal. i. 19 can fairly bear, we seem forced to the conclusion that James 
the Lord’s brother was an Apostle, and consequently is to be identified with 
James the son of Alpheus. If this be so, James the Apostle and his brethren, 
owing to the almost certainly established identity of the names Alpheus and 
Clopas (Mill, Observations, 11.2. 8, p. 286), must be further identified with the 
children of Mary (Matt. xxvii. 56; Mark xv. 40) the wife of Clopas and sister 
of our Lord (John xix. 25), and so His cousins. We have thus two texts for 
consideration, upon the correct interpretation of which the question mainly 
turns. That Gal. i. 19 cannot be strained to mean ‘‘I saw none of the Apostles, 
but I saw the Lord’s brother,” seems almost certain from the regularly exceptive 
use which εἰ μὴ appears always to preserve in the New Testament. That ἐπίσ- 
Tevoy, however, in John vii. 5, is to be taken in the barest sense of the word, or that 
‘oi ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ includes all so named, is by no means equally clear. Even if 
οὐκ ἐπίστευον be understood in a sense in which it could not be applied to an 
Apostle, we have still two of the ἀδελφοὶ, and perhaps more (see Mill), who 
were not Apostles, and who, with the sisters, might form a party that might 
reasonably be grouped under the roughly inclusive expression of ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ. 
For further information and references, see notes on Gal. i. 20, and especially 
Mill; Observations, 11. 2. 3, p. 221 sq. 

1 It has been pertinently observed by Neander, that for this very reason such 
men are to be accounted still more trustworthy witnesses. The very fact that 
they who so long resisted the impression wrought upon them by our Lord, did 
at last yield, and acknowledge Him whom they accounted but as an unnoted 
relative to be the Messiah and the Son of God, makes their testimony all the 
more valuable. See Leben Jes. Chr. p. 49 (Transl. p. 38). 


g* 


102 THE EARLY JUDMAN MINISTRY. Lect. IIL 


of their Lord’s divinity, against which faith might never 
have been able to prevail. 

Much again has been said upon the mental and spiritual 

BD Gxt sis) development of the Holy Child during these 
spiritual develop» Silent years, upon which it is equally unprofit- 
ment of ow Ze" able to enlarge.! Whatever speculations we 
may in passive and meditative moments indulge in with 
regard to those silent years, let us hold this as most fixed’ 
and irrefragably true, that our heavenly Master received 
nothing affecting His divine purpose and mission from the 
influences of even the purer and more spiritual teaching 
of those around Him. With what startling temerity has 
the converse statement been urged and accepted;’ and 
yet is there not tacit blasphemy in the very thought? 
What was there for example in Pharisaism which could 
have had its influence on Him who so spake against every 
principle that marked it? What was there in the anti- 
eudzemonism,’ as it has been termed, — the desire placidly 
to do good for its own sake, which has been attributed to 


1 This subject and the probable ‘“ plan” of our Saviour’s ministry are topics 
which most of the modern lives of our Lord discuss with a very unbecoming 
freedom. See Hase, Leben Jesu, ὃ 31, 40 sq., pp. 56,69sq. In reference to the 
former, and to the true nature of our Lord’s advance in wisdom, enough has 
been said above (p. 91, note 1); in reference to the latter it may be sufficient to 
say, simply and briefly, that the only principle of action by which man may pre- 
sume to believe the Eternal Son to have been influenced was love toward man, 
coéperating with obedience to the will of the Father (Heb. x. 9),— of Him with 
whom He Himself was one (John x..30). Comp. Ullmann, Unsundlichkeit Jesu, 
sect. 1v. p. 25 (Transl. by Park). Further remarks will be found in Neander, 
Life of Christ, Book rv. p. 80 sq. (Bohn). ; 

2 The various sources to which ancient and modern sceptical writers have 
presumed to refer the peculiar characteristics of our Lord’s teaching are speci- 
fied by Hase, Leben Jesu, § 81, p. 57. 

3 See Neander, Life of Christ, p. 88 (Bohn); and compare Jost, Gesch. des 
Judenthums, τι. 2. 8, Vol. i. p. 215. The sentiment ascribed to the so-called 
founder of this sect is found in the Mishna (Tract, ‘‘ Pirke Aboth,” 1. 8), and is 
to this effect: ‘‘ Be not as servants who serve their master on the condition of 
receiving a reward; but be as servants who serve on no such condition, and let 
the fear of heaven be in you.” It must be observed, however, that though the 
above appears to have been one of the principles of early and even later Saddu- 
cxism, the connection of the sect with Sadok, and of its doctrines with perver- 
sions of the original teaching of Antigonus Socho, is clearly to be regarded as 8 
very questionable hypothesis. See Winer, RWB. art. “ Sadducier,” Vol. ii. p. 
852 sq. ᾿ 


Lect. III. THE EARLY JUDHAN MINISTRY. 103 


the original creed of the Sadducee, —that could for one 
instant be thought to have been assimilated by Him who 
came to save His own creatures with His sufferings and 
His blood, and whose ever-operative and redemptive love 
was the living protest against the coldness and deadness 
of a merely formal or self-complacent morality? What, 
lastly, was there in the much-vaunted spirit of Essene 
teaching that we can trace in the Gospel of Jesus Christ ?? 
What was there in the spiritual pride of that secluded 
sect that sceptical criticism shall think it can discern in 
the active, practical, all-embracing covenant of Love? 
No, it cannot be. No finite human influences gave tinge 
to those eternal purposes. No doctrines and traditions of 
men added aught to the spiritual development of the Holy 
Child of Nazareth. From that Father in 
whose bosom He had been from all eternity, 
—from the fulness of that Godhead of which He Himself 
was a copartner,—unmingled and uncontaminated, came 
all forms of that wisdom in which, as man, and as subject 
to the laws and developments of man’s nature, the omnis- 
cient Son of God vouchsafed to advance and to make 
progress. 

Thus, O mystery of mysteries, in that green basin in the 
hills of Galilee,? amid simple circumstances, and perchance 


John i. 18. 


1 The connection of Christianity with Essene teaching has always been the 
most popular of these theories. Comp. Heubner on Reinhard’s Plan Jesu, 
Append. v. How little similarity, however, there really is between the two sys- 
tems, and how fundamental the differences, is clearly enough shown by Neander, 
Life of Christ, p. 88 (Bohn). For contemporary notices of the habits and tenets 
of this sect, see Philo, Quod Omn. Prob. § 12, Vol. ii. p. 457, ib. de Vit. Contempl. 
§ 1. Vol. ii. p. 471 (ed. Mang.), and Joseph. Antiqg. x11. 5.9, xvi. 1.5, Bell. Jud. 
11: 8.2 sq., and for a general estimate of the characteristics of Essene teaching 
and its relations to Pharisaism, Jost, Gesch. des Judenth. 11. 2. 8, Vol. i. p. 207 sq. 

2**The town of Nazareth lies upon the western side of a narrow oblong 
basin, extending about from S.S.W. to N.N.E., perhaps twenty minutes in 
length by eight or ten in breadth. The houses stand on the lower part of the 
slope of the western hill, which rises high and steep above them..... Towards 
the north the hills are less high; on the east and south they are low. In the 
south-east the basin contracts, and a valley runs out, narrow and winding, 
apparently to the great plain.”»— Robinson, Palestine, Vol. ii. p. 899 (ed. 2). See 
also Thomson, The Land and the Book, Vol. ii. p. 181. 


104 THE EARLY JUDAN MINISTRY. Lecr. II. 


in the exercise of a humble calling, dwelt the everlasting 
Son of God,—the varied features of that 

Based sono? nature which He Himself had made so fair, 
PF the permitted media of the impressions of 
outward things His oratory the solitary mountains; 
His purpose the salvation of our race; His will the will 
of God. Thus silently and thus mysteriously pass away 
those eighteen years, until at length the hour is come, and 
the voice of the mystic Elias is now heard sounding in the 
deserts, and preparing the way for Him that was to come. 
On the ministry of the Baptist my limits will permit me 
il hea dla but little. It would seem to have 
the Baptist, and its preceded that of our Lord by some months, 
Pepe ait and not improbably occupied the greater 
portion of the Sabbatical year, which came to its conclu- 
sion three or four months before our Lord had completed 
His thirtieth year? The effects of the Forerunner’s 
ministry seem to have been of a mingled 
character. That St. John found some partial 
adherents among the Pharisees and Sadducees® seems cer- 


Matt. iii.7. 


1 For a notice of the fair view that must have met the Saviour’s eye whenever 
He ascended the western hill, specified in the preceding note, see Robinson, Pal- 
estine, Vol. τι. p. 336 sq., and comp. the photographic view of Frith, Egypt, 
etc., Part 11. 

2 We have no data for fixing the time when the ministry of the Baptist com- 
menced, unless we urge Luke iii. 1, which, as we shall see below (p. 106, note 1), 
is more plausibly referred to another period of his history. We are thus thrown 
on conjectures; the most probable of which seems that as St. John was born six 
months before our Lord, so he might have preceded Him in his public ministra- 
tions by a not much greater space of time. The further chronological fact (see 
Wieseler, Chron. Synops. p. 204), that from the autumn of 779 A. U. c. to the 
autumn of 780 was a sabbatical year, is certainly significant, and may addition- 
ally incline us to the opinion that perhaps in the spring or summer of 780 A.U.¢. 
St. John’s voice was first heard in the wilderness of Judea. For notices of the 
outward circumstances under which the Forerunner appeared, the student may 
be referred to Spanheim, Dub. Evang. xcv11.—c. Part 11. 654 sq., Huxtable, 
Ministry of St. John, p. 8 sq. (Lond. 1848), and the exhaustive dissertation of 
Patritius, de Evang. Κατ. Book 111. p. 489 sq. 

3 The supposition that the members of these sects came to oppose the baptism 
of St. John is just grammatically possible (see Meyer in ἴος.), but wholly con- 
trary to the spirit of the context. They might have come with unworthy 
motives, from excited feelings, or from curiosity, but certainly not as direct 
opponents. See Neander, Life of Christ, p. 51 sq. (Bohn). Chrysostom perhaps 


Lecr. II. THE EARLY JUDMHAN MINISTRY. 105 


tain from the express words of St. Matthew; and that two 
years after his death he, whom his Master had pronounced 
as among the greatest of the prophets, was 
to a great degree regarded as such by the 
fickle multitude at large, seems equally certain from the 
Gospel narrative. Yet that the Pharisees as 
a body rejected his teaching, and that the 
effect on the great mass of the people was but partial and 
transitory, seems certain from our Lord’s own comments 
on the generation that would not dance to those that piped 
unto them,! and would not lament with those 

that mourned. We may with reason, then, 7027 
believe that the harbinger’s message might 

have arrested, aroused, and awakened; but that the gen- 
eral influence of that baptism of water was comparatively 
limited, and that its memory would have soon died away 
if He that baptized with the Holy Ghost and with fire 
had not invested it with a new and more vital significance. 
John struck the first chords, but the sounds would have 
soon died out into silence if a mightier hand had not 
swept the yet vibrating strings.” 


Luke vii. 28. 


Hark «xi. 32. 


goes too far the other way when he says, οὐδὲ γὰρ ἁμαρτανόντας εἶδεν ἀλλὰ 
HetaBadrdAouevous. — Hom. in Matt. x1. Vol. vii. p. 178 (ed. Bened. 2). 

1 This is also shown clearly by the remark of our Lord to the Jews on their 
general reception of the Baptist’s message, ἤϑελήσατε ἀγαλλιαϑῆναι πρὸς 
ὥραν ἐν τῷ φωτὶ αὐτοῦ, John vy. 35, where, though the chief emphasis probably 
rests on the ἀγαλλιαϑῆναι (as opp. to μετανοῆσαι, see Meyer in loc.), the πρὸς 
épay is not without its special force: ‘‘It marks,” as Chrysostom says, ‘their 
light-mindedness, and the quick way in which they fell back from him.” Com- 
pare too Matt. xxi. 32, though this perhaps more especially applies to those 
(οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ of πρεσβύτεροι τοῦ λαοῦ, ver. 23) to whom our Lord was 
immediately speaking. On the effect of the Baptist’s preaching compare, 
though with some reserve, the well expressed estimate of Milman, History of 
Christianity, τ. 8, Vol. i. p. 148 sq. 

2 This is the ancient, and, as it would seem, correct view of the relations of the 
ministry of Christ to that of His forerunner. Though on the one hand we 
must not rashly dissociate what undoubtedly stood in close relation to one 
another, we still can scarcely go so far on the other as to say that St. John was 
“absolutely the counterpart, and merely the forerunner of Christ’ (Greswell, 
Dissert. x1x. Vol. ii. p. 156). The difference between St. John’s baptism and 
Christian, though treated as a needless question by Jackson (Creed, vu. 41, Vol. 
vi. p. 380), often occupied the attention of the early Church, and has never been 


100 THE EARLY JUDAN MINISTRY. Lect. III. 


It was now probably towards the close of the year of 
ΜΑΣ eater the City 780,1 after more than the time 
Lord to the Bap- allotted to the Levite’s preparation for “ the 
ine ex service of the ministry” had already passed 
away,” that the Holy Jesus, moved, we may 
humbly presume, by that Spirit which afterwards directed 


Numb. iv. 


better stated than by Gregory of Nazianzus: ‘ John also baptized, not, however, 
any longer after a Jewish manner, for he baptized, not with water only, but 
unto repentance. Still it was not yet after a spiritual manner, for he adds not, 
‘with the Spirit.’ Jesus baptizes also, but it is with the Spirit.” — Orat. xxx1x. 
p- 634 (Paris, 1609). See August. contr. Litt. Petil. τι. 82. 75, Vol. ix. p. 284 (ed. 
Migné), where the erroneous opinions of that schismatical bishop on this head 
are very clearly exposed. Comp. also Thorndike, Laws of the Church, 111. 7. 4, 
Vol. iv. 1, p. 149 sq. (A.-C. Libr.). 

1 This date, it need scarcely be said, like all the dates in our Redeemer’s history, 
is open to much discussion. It has been selected after a prolonged consideration 
of the various opinions that have been recently adduced, and certainly seems 
plausible. If, as we have supposed, our Lord was born towards the close of 
January or beginning of February, A. U.c. 750, He would now be thirty years 
old and some months over, an age well coinciding with the ὡσεὶ ἐτῶν τριά- 
κοντα ἀρχόμενος of Luke iii. 23. The only difficulty, and it is confessedly a 
great one, is the date previously specified by Luke, ch. iii. 1, the fifteenth year 
of the reign of Tiberius. If we take the first and apparently plain sense of the 
words, this fifteenth year can only be conceived to date back from the regular 
accession of Tiberius at the death of Augustus, and will consequently coincide 
with A.U.c. 781,—a date which not only involves the awkwardness of positively 
forcing us to extend the age of our Lord to thirty-one or more, to make His birth 
precede the death of Herod (certainly April, A.U.c. 750), but also forces us to 
shorten the duration of His ministry very unduly to bring His death either to 
the year A.D. 2901 A. D. 30, which seem the only ones that fairly satisfy the 
astronomical elements which have been introduced into the question by Wurm 
(Astrom. Beitrage) and others. We must choose, then, between two modes of 
obviating the difficulty; either, (a) with Greswell (Dissert. vi1. Vol. i. p. 334 sq.) 
und others, we must suppose the fifteen years to include two years during which 
Tiberius appears to have been associated with Augustus,—a mode of dating, 
however, both unlikely and unprecedented (see Wieseler, Chron. Syn. p. 172, 
Browne, Ordo Sec. § 71, p. 76 sq.); or (Ὁ) we must conceive the fifteenth of Tibe- 
rius to coincide, not with the first appearance, but the captivity of John the 
Baptist, —the epoch, be it observed, from which, in accordance with ancient 
tradition (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 111. 24), the narrative of the Synoptical Gospels 
appears to date (Matt. iv. 12, 17; Mark i. 14). This latter view has been well 
supported by Wieseler (Chron. Syn. p. 172 sq.), and adopted by Tischendorf 
(Synops. Evang. p. xiv. sq.), and is, perhaps, slightly the most probable. The 
opinion of Sanclemente and Browne (§ 85) that the fifteenth of Tiberius was the 
year of Passion, has much less in its favor. 

2 The meaning of the words ὡσεὶ ἐτῶν τριάκοντα ἀρχόμενος (Luke iii. 23) has 
been much discussed; the doubt being whether the participle is to be referred (a) 
to the age specified (‘‘incipiebat esse quasi annorum triginta,”’ Beza, Greswell), or 
(Ὁ) to the commencement of the ministry. Whichever position of ἀρχόμενος we 


Lecr. III. THE EARLY JUDHAN MINISTRY. 107 


His feet to the wilderness, leaves the home of His child- 
hood, to return to it no more as His earthly abode, save 
for the few days! that preceded the removal to Caper- 
naum in the spring of the following year. It was now 
winter,” and the valley of Esdraelon was just green with 
springing corn,®? as the Redeemer’s path lay across it 
toward the desert valley of the Jordan, either to that an- 
cient ford near Succoth, which recent geographical specu- 


adopt (see Tischendorf, in loc.) it can scarcely be doubted that (5) is the correct 
interpretation (so Origen and Euthym.), and that our Lord’s ministry is to be 
understood to have commenced when he was more than thirty, but less than 
thirty-one years ofage. For arguments (not very strong) in favor of ὡσεὶ imply- 
ing, not somewhat above, but somewhat under, the time specified, see Greswell, 
Dissert. x1. Vol. i. p. 368. 

1 When our Lord returned to Galilee after the Temptation, it would seem that 
for the short time that preceded the passover He did not stay at Nazareth, but at 
Capernaum. See Johnii.12. On His next return to Galilee (December, A.U.c. 
781), He appears to have gone to and perhaps stayed at Cana (John iv. 46), a 
place to which some writers have supposed that the Virgin and her kindred had 
previously retired. See Ewald, Gesch. Christus, Vol. vy. Ὁ. 147. Under any circum- 
stances we have only a short period remaining before the final removal to Caper- 
naum, specified Matt. iv. 18, Luke iv. 31. 

2 The conclusion at which Wieseler arrives after a careful consideration of all 
the historical data that tend to fix the time of our Lord’s baptism, is as follows: 
Jesus must have been baptized by John not earlier than February, 780 A. U.c. 
(the extreme “terminus a quo” supplied by St. Luke), nor later than the winter 
of the same year (the extreme “terminus ad quem ”’ supplied by St. John). See 
Chron. Synops. τι. B. 2, p. 201. Wieseler himself fixes upon the spring or sum- 
mer of 780 A. τ΄. Cc. as the exact date (p. 202); but to this period there are two 
objections: First, that if,as seems reasonable, we agree (with Wieseler) to fix 
the deputation to the Baptist (John i. 19 sq.) about the close of February, 781 
A.U.C., we shall have a period of eight months, viz. from the middle of 780 to 
the end of the second month of 781, wholly unaccounted for (Wieseler, Chron. 
Synops. p. 258); secondly, that it is almost the unanimous tradition of the early 
church that the baptism of our Lord took place in winter, or in the early part of 
the year. See the numerous ancient authorities in the useful table of Patritius, 
Dissert. x1x. Book m1: p.276, and comp. Diss. xLvil.p. 485. The tradition of the 
Basilideans, mentioned: by Clement of Alexandria (Strom. τ. 21, Vol. i. p. 408, ed. 
Pott), that the baptism of our Lord took place on the eleventh or fifteenth of 
Tybi (Jan. 6 or 10), deserves consideration, both from the antiquity of the sect, 
and from the fact that the baptism of our Lord was in their system an epoch of 
the highest importance. See Neander, Church Hist. Vol. ii. p. 102 (Clark). The 
ordinary objections founded on the season of the year are well and, as it would 
seem, convincingly answered by Greswell, Dissert. x1. Vol. i. p. 371 (ed. 2). 

3 The harvest in Palestine ripens at different times in different localities; but 
as a general rule the barley harvest may be considered as taking place from the 
middle to the close of April, and the wheat harvest about a fortnight later. See 
Robinson, Palestine, Vol. i. p. 481 (ed. 2), and compare Stanley, Palestine, p. 
240, note (ed. 2). 


108 THE EARLY JUDAN MINISTRY. Lect. III. 


lation’ has connected with the Bethabara or rather 
Bethany of St. John, or more probably to the neighbor- 
hood of that more southern ford not far from Jericho, 
round which traditions yet linger,? and to which the mul- 
titudes that flocked to the Baptist from 
Juda and Jerusalem would have found a 
speedier and more convenient access. There the great 
Forerunner was baptizing; there he had been but just 
uttering those words of stern warning to the 
tukew 7. mingled multitude, to Pharisee and to Sad- 
Soe aaa v. ducee,® which are recorded by the first and 
third Evangelists; there stood around him 
men with musing hearts, doubting whether that bold 
speaker were the Christ or no, when suddenly, 
unknown and unrecognized, the very Mes- 
siah mingles with those strangely-assorted and expectant 
multitudes, and with them seeks baptism at the hands of 
the great Preacher of the desert. 

It has been doubted whether that lonely 
πον child of the wilderness at once recognized the 
alles thet Holy One that was now meekly standing be- 
fore him. It is, at any rate, certain, from his own words, 


Mark t. 5. 


Luke iti. 15. 


1 See Stanley, Palestine, p. 308, who both pleads for the reading Bethabara, 
and for the more northern position of the scene of the baptism. With regard to 
the reading, at any rate, there can be no reasonable doubt. All the ancient 
authorities and nearly all the MSS. in the time of Origen (σχεδὸν πάντα τὰ 
ἀντίγραφα) adopt the reading Bethany; nor would Bethabara have ever found a 
place in the sacred text, if Origen, moved by geographical considerations, had 
not given sanction to the change. See Liicke, Comment. uber Joh. i, 28, and the 
critical notes of Tischendorf, in loc. 

2 The traditional sites adopted by the Latin and Greek churches are not the 
same, but both not far from Jericho. The bathing-place of the Latin pilgrims is 
not far from the ruined convent of St. John the Baptist, that of the Greek pil- 
grims two or three miles below it. See Robinson, Palestine, Vol. i. p. 586. The 
objection to the latter, and possibly to the former place, is the steepness of the 
banks (see Thomson, The Land and the Book, Vol. ii. p. 445), but this cannot be 
strongly pressed, as at the assumed time of year (when, as we learn from Robin- 
son [Vol. i. p. 541), the river has not yet been seen by travellers) partial or 
local overflows might have given greater facilities for the performance of the 
ceremony. See Greswell, Dissert. x1x. Vol. ii. p. 184. See, however, Thomson, 
The Land and the Book, Vol. ii. p. 452 sq. 

3 See above, p. 104, note 3. 


Lect. III. THE EARLY JUDHAN MINISTRY. 109 


that his knowledge of our Lord as the Messiah was not due 
to a previous acquaintance,’ and it is also quite possible 
that he might not have known his Redeemer even by out- 
ward appearance. But if he knew him not by the seeing 
of the eye, he must have known of Him by the hearing of 
the ear, and he must have felt within his soul, as the Lord 
drew nigh, a sudden and mystic intimation that he was gaz- 
ing on Him of whose wondrous birth his own mother’s lips 
must oft have told him, and on whose future destinies he 
might often have mused with a profound and all but con- 
sciously-prophetic interest.2, With strange memories in his 
thoughts, and perhaps now still stranger presentiments 
in his heart, the Baptist pleads against such 
an inverted relation as the Son of Mary seek- 
ing baptism from the son of Elisabeth. He 
pleads; but he pleads in vain. Overper- 
suaded and awed by the solemn words which he might not 


Matt. iti. 14. 


Ver. 15. 


1 This view, which is substantially that taken by the older commentators, has 
been well defended by Dr. Mill, against the popular sceptical objections. See Odss. 
on Pantheistic Principles, 1.1.5, p.79 sq. We certainly seem to gather from 
the language of St. Matthew that the Baptist recognized our Lord, if not dis- 
tinctly as the Messiah, yet in a degree closely approaching to it, before the bap- 
tism, — for otherwise how are we to understand the language of Matt. iii. 14? 
See especially Chrysost. in Joann. Hom. xvi. Whether this was due to a short 
unrecorded conversation (Mill), or, as suggested in the text, to special revelation 
(οὐκ ἀπ’ avdpwrivns φιλίας ἦν αὕτη [ἣ μαρτυρία], ἀλλ᾽ ἐξ ἀποκαλύψεως, 
Ammonius. ap. Cramer, Caten. in loc.), cannot be decided. The facts at any 
rate, as specified by the two Evangelists, are perfectly compatible with each 
other; on the one hand, St. John did recognize our Lord, just before the bap- 
tism (Matt. 7. c.); on the other hand, he himself declares (John J. 6.) that his per- 
sonal acquaintance, if such existed, was not in any degree concerned in his 
subsequent complete recognition of Him as the Christ, the Son of God. So 
rightly De Wette, on John, /. c., and similarly Huxtable, Ministry of St. John, 
p. 60. 

2It has been well observed by Mill, that ‘‘the designation to which he bore 
testimony unconsciously in the womb, and which his mother, with entire con- 
sciousness of its meaning, expressed reverently to the Virgin Mother of her 
Lord, cannot have been kept secret from his earliest years; and however the 
memory of the wonderful facts in question might fade, as would naturally be 
the case, from the minds of many that heard them,.... the tradition of them 
could not possibly thus pass away from him. Nor would his solitary life in the 
desert, apart from his kindred, as from mankind in general, tend to impair the 
recollection, but to strengthen 10.) — Observations on Panth. Principles, 11. 1. 5, 
p. 80. 


10 


110 THE EARLY JUDMAN MINISTRY. Lect. III. 


have fully understood, the Forerunner descends with his 
Redeemer into the rapid waters of the now sacred river; 
when lo, when the inaugural rite is done, the promised 
sign at length appears, the Baptist beholds the opened 
heavens, and the embodied form! of the de- 
scending Spirit ; he sees, perhaps, the kindled 
fire, apt symbol of the Redeemer’s baptism, of which an 
old writer has made mention ;? he hears the 
Father’s voice of blessing and love; he sees 
and hears, and, as he himself tells us, bears 
witness that this is verily the Son of God. 
And now all righteousness has been fulfilled. Borne 
away, as it would seem at once, by the motions 
oanetemptationef of the Spirit, either to that lonely and unex- 
mare anderewm  lored chain of desert mountains of which 
Nebo has been thought to form a part, or to 
that steep rock on this side of the Jordan 
which tradition still points out;® there, amid 
the wild beasts of the thickets and the caverns, in hunger 


Luke tii. 22, 


Matt. iii. 16. 
John i. 34. 


Hark i. 13. 


1 The following is the ancient tradition referred to: ‘‘And then when Jesus came 
to the river Jordan, where John was baptizing, and descended to the water, a 
fire was kindled over the Jordan.” — Justin Martyr, Trypho, cap. 88, Vol. ii. p. 
802 (ed. Otto). So also, somewhat similarly, Epiphanius, Her. xxx. 13, and the 
writer of a treatise, de Baptismo Hereticorum, prefixed to the works of Cyprian 
(p. 80, ed. Oxon.), who alludes to the tradition as mentioned in the apocryphal 
and heretical Pauli Predicatio. Something like it has been noticed in the 
Oracula Sibylle (ναι. 88) in Galland. Bibl. Vet. Patr. Vol. i. p. 387 oc. 

2 The distinct language of St. Luke, σωματικῷ εἴδει ὡσεὶ περιστεράν (ch. iii. 
22), must certainly preclude our accepting any explanatory gloss, referring the 
holy phenomenon to light shining “ with the rapid and undulating motion of a 
dove” (Milman, Hist. of Christianity, τ. 8, Vol. i. p. 151). The form was real. 
For the opinions of antiquity on the manifestation of the Holy Ghost in this 
peculiar form, see the learned work of the eloquent Jesuit, Barradius, Comment. 
in Harmon. 1. 15, Vol. ii. p. 48 (Antw. 1617). 

3 The place which the most current tradition has fixed on as the site of the 
Temptation is the mountain Quarantana, which Robinson describes as ‘an 
almost perpendicular wall of rock, twelve or fifteen hundred feet above the 
plain.” — Palestine, Vol. i. p. 567 (ed. 2). Compare Thomson, The Land and the 
Book, Vol. ii. p. 450. It has been asserted by Robinson that this tradition does 
not appear to be older than the time of the Crusades, but see Mill, Sermons on 
the Temptation, p. 166. The supposition in the text seems better to accord with 
the probable locality assigned to the baptism, but must be regarded as purely 
conjectural. 


Lect. III. THE EARLY JUDAAN MINISTRY. 11] 


and loneliness, the now inaugurated Messiah confronts in 
spiritual conflict the fearful adversary of His kingdom and 
of that race which He came to save. On the deep secrets” 
of those mysterious forty days it is not meet that specula- 
tion should dwell. If we had only the narrative of St. 
Matthew, we might think that Satanic temp- 
tation only presumed to assail the Holy One 
when hunger had weakened the energies of the now 
exhausted body. If, again, we had only the gospels of St. 
Mark and St. Luke, we might be led to con- noe. 

clude that the struggle with the powers of Gh, 25% 

darkness extended over the whole period of.that length- 
ened fast. From both, however, combined, we may perhaps 
venture to conclude that those three concentrated forms 
of Satanic daring, which two Evangelists have been moved 
to record, presented themselves only at the close of that 
season of mysterious trial... Upon the three forms of 
temptation, and their attendant circumstances, my limits 
will not permit me to enlarge. These three remarks only 
will I presume to make. rst, I will ven- 
ture to avow my most solemn conviction that 
the events here related belong to no trance 
or dream-land to which, alas, even some better forms 
of both ancient and modern speculation have presumed 
to refer them,’ but are to be accepted as real and literal 


Ch. iv. 2. 


The temptation no 
vision or trance. 


1So perhaps Origen, who remarks: ‘ Quadraginta diebus tentatur Jesus, et 
que fuerint tentamenta nescimus.’’— Comment. in Luc. Hom. xxix. Vol. iii. p. 
966 (ed. Bened.). Most of the patristic commentators seem to consider that 
the hours of hunger and bodily weakness were especially chosen by the Evil 
One for his most daring and malignant forms of temptation. See Chrysostom 
on Matt. iv. 2, Cyril Alex. on Luke iv. 3, and compare the excellent remarks of 
Ireneus, Her. v. 21. 

2 The opinion that, if not the whole, yet that the concluding scenes of the 
temptation were of the character ofa vision, was apparently entertained by Ori- 
gen (de Princip. Iv. 16, Vol. i. p. 175, ed. Bened.), Theodore of Mopsuestia 
(Minter, Fragm. Patrum, Fasc. 1. p. 107), and the author of a treatise, de Jejunio 
et Tentat. Christi, annexed to the works of Cyprian (p. 86, Oxon, 1682). This 
view in a more extended application has been adopted by many modern writers, 
both English (Farmer, on Christ’s Temptation, ed. 8, Lond. 1776) and foreign, but 
it need scarcely be said that all such opinions, — whether the Temptation be sup- 
posed a vision especially called up, or a mere significant dream (see Meyer in Stud. 


112 THE EARLY JUDZAN MINISTRY. Lect. It 


occurrences, — yea, as real and as literal as that final over- 
throw of Satan’s power on Calvary, when the Lord reft 
away from him all the thronging hosts of darkness,! and 
triumphed over them on His very cross of suffering. 

Secondly, I could as soon doubt my own 
an mesma ation existence as doubt the completely outward 
εἰ Sel nature of these forms of temptation,? and 
their immediate connection with the personal agency of the 
personal Prince of Darkness.’ I could as soon accept 
the worst statements of the most degraded form of Arian 
creed as believe that this temptation arose from any inter- 


τι. Krit. for 1831, p. 319 sq.), —clearly come into serious collision with the simple 
yet circumstantial narrative of the first and third Evangelists; in which, not 
only is there not the faintest hint that could render such an opinionin any degree 
plausible, but, on the contrary, expressions almost studiously chosen (av7x3n, 
Matt. iv. 1; ἤγετο, Luke iv. 1. Comp. Mark i. 12, ἐκβάλλει; προσελϑών, Matt. 
iv. 3; παραλαμβάνει, ver. 5; ἀναγαγών, Luke iv. 5; ἀπέστη, ver. 13) to mark 
the complete objective character of the whole. See, thus far, Fritzsche, Pritzs- 
chior. Opusc. p. 122 sq., and Meyer, Komment. tiber Matt. p. 114 sq., though in 
their general estimate of the whole, the conclusions of both these writers are 
distinctly to be rejected. For further notices and references on a subject, the 
literature of which is perplexingly copious, the student may be referred, perhaps, 
especially to Andrewes, Sermons (vii.) on the Temptation, Vol. v. p. 479 sq. (A.-C. 
Libr.), Hacket, Sermons (xzi.) on the Temptation, p. 205 sq. (Lond. 1671), Span- 
heim, Dub. Evang. L1.—Lxv. Part 11. p. 195 sq., Deyling, Obs. Sacr. xvii. Part 
II. p. 354, and Huxtable, The Temptation of our Lord (Lond. 1848), and for prac- 
tical comments on the circumstances and moral intention of the whole, Leo M. 
Serm. XXX1X.—L. Vol. i. p. 148 (ed. Ballerin.), Jones (of Nayland), Works, Vol. 
iii. p. 157 sq. 

1 For a discussion on the meaning of ἀπεκδυσάμενος in the difficult text here 
referred to (Col. ii. 15), and for a further elucidation of the view here taken, see 
Commentary on Coloss. p. 161 sq. 

2 One of the popular modes of evading the supposed difficulties in this holy 
narrative is to assume that the whole series of temptations were really internal, 
but represented in the description as external. See, for example, Ulmann, die 
Unsundlichkeit Jesu, Sect. 7, p. δῦ (Transl.). Most of such views arise either 
from erroneous conceptions in respect of the mysterious question of our Lord’s 
capability of temptation, or from tacit denials of the existence or personal 
agencies of malignant spirits. On the first of these points, see especially Mill, 
Serm. 11. pp. 26—89, and on the second, Serm. 111. p. 54 sq. Some valuable 
remarks on these and other questions connected with our Lord’s Temptation 
will be found in the curious and learned work of Meyer, Historia Diaboli, 111. 
6, p. 271 sq. (Tubing. 1780). 

9 The monstrous opinion that the Tempter was human, and either the high- 
priest or one of the Sanhedrin (comp. Feilmoser, Tubing. Quartalschrift for 
1828) is noticed, but not condemned in the terms which so plain a perversion 
deserves, by Milman, Hist. of Christianity, 1. 8, Vol. 1. p. 153. 


Lect. III. THE EARLY JUDHAN MINISTRY. 118 


nal strugglings or solicitations;1 I could as soon admit 
the most repulsive tenet of a dreary Socinianism as deem 
that it was enhanced by any self-engendered 
enticements, or hold that it was aught else 
than the assault of a desperate and demoniacal malice 
from without,’ that recognized in the nature of man a pos- 
sibility of falling, and that thus far consistently, though 
impiously, dared even in the person of the Son of Man to 
make proof of its hitherto resistless energies. 

Thirdly, 1 cannot think it an idle speculation μα nn 
that connects the three forms of temptation %”¢ Parts of our 
with those that brought sin into the world, * 

— the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eye, and the 
pride of life; nor can I deem it unnatural to 
see in them three spiritual assaults directed 
against the three portions of our composite nature. To 
the body is presented the temptation of satisfying its wants 


James i. 18. 


1 John ii. 16. 


1 Such conceptions and suppositions, alas, only too often in this humanitarian 
age secretly entertained, if not always outwardly expressed, are justly censured 
by Dr. Mill (Serm. τι. p. 38) as degrading and blasphemous. In all speculations 
on this mysterious subject the student will do well to bear in mind this admirable 
statement of Augustine: ‘‘ Non dicimus nos Christum, felicitate carnis a nostris 
sensibus sequestrate, cupidtiatem vitiorum sentire non potuisse, sed dicimus, 
eum perfectione virtutis, et non per carnis concupiscentiam procreata carne, 
cupiditatem non habuisse vitiorum,’’— Op. Imperf. contr. Jul. tv. 48, Vol. x. p. 
1366 (ed. Migné),—this great writer’s last and unfinished work. In estimating 
the nature of our Lord’s tentability let us never forget the holiness of His 
humanity, and the eternal truth of His miraculous conception. 

2 On the question as to the form in which the Adversary appeared, whether 
human or angelical (comp. Taylor, Life of Christ, 1.9.7, Lange, Leben Jesu, 11. 
3. 6, Vol. ii. p. 217), all speculation is as unnecessary as it is more or less pre- 
sumptuous. All] that we must firmly adhere to is the belief that the presence of 
the Evil One “was real, and that it was external to our Lord.” — Huxtable, 
Temptation of the Lord, p. 78. Compare Mill, Serm. 111. p. 64. 

8 This is touched upon by Augustine (Znarr. in Psalm. vit1. 14. Vol. iv. p. 
116, ed. Migné) and others of the earlier writers, but nowhere more clearly and 
convincingly stated than by Jackson, Creed, v111. 10, Vol. vii. p. 450 sq. See 
also Andrewes, Serm. 11. Vol. v. p. 496 (A.-C. Libr.), Mill, Serm. τι. p. 60. 

4 For a discussion on the threefold nature of man, and a distinction between 
the terms sowl and spirit, see The Destiny of the Creature, Serm. Vv. p. 99, and the 
works there referred to (p. 167). The opinion of Mill that the seat of the second 
temptation was “our higher mental nature” (p. 60), and of the third, the “‘ high- 
est self-consciousness, by which man becomes to himself the centre of regard” 
(ib.), is scarcely so simple or so exact as the reference to soul and spirit adopted 
in the text. 

10* 


114 THE EARLY JUDMAN MINISTRY. Lecr. III. 


by a display of power which would have tacitly abjured 
its dependence on the Father, and its perfect submission to 
His heavenly will. To the soul, the longing, appetitive 
soul’ (for I follow the order of St. Luke) was addressed 
the temptation of Messianic dominion? (mere material 
dominion would seem by no means so probable) over all 
the kingdoms of the world, and of accomplishing in a 
moment of time all for which the incense of the one sacri- 
fice on Calvary is still rising up on the altar of God. To 
the spirit® of our Redeemer, with even more frightful pre- 
sumption, was addressed the temptation of using that 
power which belonged to Him as God to vindicate His 
own eternal nature, and to display by one dazzling miracle 
the true relation in which Jesus of Nazareth stood to men, 
and to angels, and to God.* 


1 This we may roughly define with Olshausen as ‘ vis inferior [in homine] que 
agitur, movetur, in imperio tenetur”’ (Opusc. p. 154), and may in many respects 
regard as practically identical with kapdia,—the soul’s imaginary seat and 
abidingplace. See Comment. on Phil. iv. 6, Destiny of Creature, v. p. 117, and 
Beck, Seelenlehre, 111. 20, p. 68. On the order of the temptations, compare Gres- 
well, Dissert. xx. Vol. ii. p. 192, Mill, Serm. Iv. p. 82 sq. 

2See Lange, Leben Jesu, 11. 8. 6, Part 11. p. 225, and compare Huxtable, 
Temptation of the Lord, p. 87 sq. If with Dr. Mill we refer it to worldly 
dominion generally (Serm. Iv. p. 105), we must, with the same learned author, 
suppose that Satan really did not fully know the exact nature of Him whom he 
impiously dared to tempt (p. 63. Comp. Cyril Alex. on Luke iv. 8); a view, 
however, which does not seem fully consistent with the opening address of the 
Tempter. 

8 This third and highest part in man we may again roughly define with Ols- 
hausen (compare note 1) as “‘ vis superior, agens, imperans in homine” (Opuse. 
p. 154), and may rightly regard as in many respects identical with νοῦς. See 
Comment. on Phil. iv. 6, Destiny of Creature, v. p. 115, and Delitzsch, Bibl. 
Psychol. tv. p. 145. 

4 The third form of temptation, that of spiritual presumption, has been thus 
well paraphrased by Dr. Mill: ‘Give to the assembled multitudes the surest 
proof that thou art indeed their expected King,—the Desire of them and of all 
nations, — at whose coming the Lord shall shake the heavens and the earth, and 
make this house more glorious than the mysterious Shekinah made the first.’? — 
Serm. p.118. The exact spot (τὸ πτερύγιον τοῦ ἱεροῦ, Matt. iv. 5) which was 
the scene of this temptation is not perfectly certain. The most probable opinion 
is that it was the topmost ridge of the στοὰ βασιλικὴ on the south side of the 
temple (observe that in both evangelists it is τὸ πτερύγιον τοῦ ἱεροῦ, not 
τοῦ ναοῦ), the height of which is thus alluded to by Josephus: “If any one 
looked down from the top of the battlements, or down both those altitudes, he 
would be giddy, while his sight could not reach to such an immense depth.” — 


Lect. ΠῚ | THE EARLY JUDMAN MINISTRY. 115 


When every form of temptation was ended, the baffled 
Tempter departs, but, as St. Luke reminds Soe δ΄ 
us, only for a season; and straightway those — angels, and the re 
blessed spirits, whose ministry but a few mo- "7? (A'k* 
ments before the Devil had tempted Him to 
command, now tender to their Lord’s weakened humanity 
their loving and unbidden services.’ Sus- 
tained by these angelical ministries, our Lord 
would seem at once to have returned backward to the 
valley of the Jordan in his homeward way to Galilee, and 
after a few days — for here to assume, with a recent chro- 
nologer, a lapse of several months,’ is in the highest degree 
unnatural —to have had that second and noticeable inter- 
view with the Baptist at Bethany, or Betha- 
bara, which is recorded to us by St. John. 

It was but the day before that the Fore- gy testimony of 
runner had borne his testimony to the dep- “20 | 
utation of Priests and Levites that had come 
to him from Jerusalem;* and now, absorbed, as he well 


Ver. 11. 


Ch. i. 29. 


Antig. xv. τι. δ (Whiston). This, however, could scarcely be so clearly in the 
sight of ‘tthe assembled multitudes” (Mill),—if indeed this be a necessary 
adjunct, —as at other sites that have been proposed. See Middleton, Greek Art. 
p. 185 (ed. Rose), and Meyer, Komment. wb. Matt. iv. 5, p. 110. 

1 The nature of the services of these blessed spirits, owing to the use of the 
general term διηκόνουν (Matt. iv. 11), cannot be more exactly specified. If we 
admit conjectures we may venture to believe that they came to supply sustenance 
(‘‘allato cibo,” Beng.; comp. 1 Kings xix.), and possibly also to administer sup‘ 
port and comfort (‘‘ad solatium refero,” Calv.; comp. Luke xxii. 48). See 
Hacket, Serm. xxi. p. 406 (Lond. 1675). 

2 See Wieseler, Chron. Synops. p. 258, and compare the remarks on the chro- 
nology of this period made above, p. 107, note 2. 

8 This deputation, we are informed by the Evangelist, was sent by the ᾿Ιουδαῖοι, 
—a general name by which St. John nearly always designates the Jews in their 
peculiar aspect as a hostile community to our Lord, and as standing in marked 
contrast to the impressible ὄχλος. The more special and direct senders of this 
deputation of Priests and their attendant Levites (John i. 19) were perhaps the 
members of the Sanhedrin, by whom these emissaries might have been directed 
to inquire into and test the Baptist’s pretensions as a public teacher (comp. Matt. 
xxi. 23), and to gain some accurate information about one who was drawing all 
Jerusalem and Judza to his baptism (Matt. iii. 5), and in whom some even 
deemed that they recognized the expected Messiah (Luke iii. 15)., On the mes- 
sage generally, see Lange, Leben Jesu, τι. 4. 1, Part 1. p. 451, Liicke, Comment. 
uber Joh. Vol. i. p. 881; and on the particular questions propounded to the Bap 


110 THE EARLY JUDHAN MINISTRY. Lect. Il. 


might have been, in the thoughts of Him to whom he had 
so recently borne witness, he raises his eyes, 
and lo! he sees coming to him the very sub- 
ject of his meditations; he sees his Redeemer,! and humbly 
greets Him “as the Lamb of God that tak- 
eth away the sin of the world.” With the 
same significant words*® the Baptist parts from Him on 
the morrow, — words that sank so deep into 
the hearts of two of his disciples, Andrew, 
and not improbably the Evangelist who gives the account, 
that they follow the Lord, and abide with 
Him, to return back again no more. On the 
morrow, with Simon Peter and Philip of Bethsaida, and 


Ch. i. 29. 


John t. 29. 


Ver. 35. 


Ver. 40. 


tist, Origen, in Joc. Vol. iv. p. 108 (ed. Bened.), Greg. Magn. in Evang. τ. 7, Vol. 
i. p. 1456 (ed. Bened.). 

1 The circumstances that led to this meeting are wholly unknown to us. That 
it took place after our Lord’s baptism seems certain; and that the preceding 
interview with the Priests and Levites also took place after the same event seems 
to follow from the words “whom ye (dmets) know not” (ver. 26),— an expres- 
sion which may be fairly urged as implying by contrast some knowledge on the 
part of the speaker. Now, as we learn from St. Mark (ch. i. 12) that the Tempta- 
tion followed immediately after the Baptism, we may perhaps reasonably believe 
that our Lord was now on His homeward-way to Galilee after the Temptation 
(comp. August. de Consens. Evang. 11.17), and that He either specially went a 
little out of His way again to see and greet the Baptist, or that the direction of 
His journey homeward led Him past the scene of the previous baptism, where 
John was still preaching and baptizing. If we fix the site of the Temptation at 
Quarantana, the former supposition will seem most probable, if the mountains 
of Moab (see ahove, p. 110, note 3), the latter. The deputation from the Sanhe- 
drin and the close of the Temptation would thus appear to have been closely 
contemporaneous. See Liicke on Johni. 19, Vol. i. p. 898, and compare Lampe 
in loc., and Luthardt, Joh. Evang. Vol. i. p. 829. 

2 Into the exact meaning of these words we will not here enter further than 
to remark, (a) that the reference seems clearly not to the Paschal Lamb (Lampe, 
Luthardt, al.), a reference sufficiently appropriate afterwards (1 Cor. v. 7), though 
not now, but to Isaiah liii. 7 (Origen VI. 35), a passage which, to one so earnestly 
expecting the Messiah as the holy Baptist, must have long been well-known and 
familiar; (>) that the meaning of αἴρειν has nowhere been better expressed than 
by Chrysostom, who in referring to a former part of the same prophecy (Isaiah 
xxiii. 4) says: “‘He did not use the expression, ‘He ransomed’ (ἔλυσεν), but 
‘He received and bare’ (ἔλαβεν καὶ ἐβάστασεν) ; which seems to me to have 
been spoken by the prophet rather in reference to sins, in accordance with the 
declaration of John, ‘Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the 
world.’” Hom. in Matt. xvu1. 1, Vol. vii. p. 370 (ed. Bened. 2). For further 
information on both these points consult the elaborate notes of Liicke, in loc. Vol. 
i. p. 404 sq. 


Leor. IIL. THE EARLY JUDMAN MINISTRY. ΤΠ 


Nathanael of Cana added to the small company,’ the Lord 
directs His steps onward towards the hills 
of Galilee, perchance by the very path which 
he had traversed in solitude a few eventful weeks before. 
The immediate destination of that small company was 
doubtless the Lord’s earthly home at Naza- 

- The journey to, 
reth;? but there, as we learn from the Evan- and miracle at, 
gelist, the Lord could not have found the eT ea 
blessed Virgin, as she was now a few miles off at Cana,’ 
the guest at a marriage festival. How natural then was it 
that the Lord, with his five disciples, one of 
whom belonged to Cana, should at once pass 
onward to that village, to greet her from whom He had 
been separated several weeks. And how consistent is the 
narrative that tells us that on the third day Ch. ti. 1. 
after leaving Bethany the Lord and His fol- 
lowers had become the invited and welcome 
guests of those with whom the Virgin was now abiding. 

With the details of the great miracle 
which on this occasion our Lord was pleased sie Hone ate Be 
to perform, we are all, I trust, too familiarly 
acquainted to need any lengthened narrative* We may, 


Ver. 44, 45. 


John xxi. 2. 


Ver. 2. 


1 We can scarcely agree with Greswell (Dissert. xx111. Vol. p. 284 sq.) in the 
inference that the two disciples did not now permanently attach themselves to 
our Lord. The express terms of the call given the next day to Philip, ‘‘ follow 
me” (ver. 44), and the certain fact that some disciples were with our Lord the 
day following (John ii. 2), seem strongly in favor of the opinion that all the five 
disciples here mentioned did formally attach themselves to our Lord, and went 
with Him into Galilee. See Maldonatus on John i. 48 and ii. 2. The miracle that 
followed had special reference to these newly-attracted followers. See John ii. 
11, and compare Luthardt, Johann. Evang. Vol. i. p. 351. 

2 Unless we accept the not very probable sapposition alluded to p. 107, note 1. 

3 On the position of Cana, which now appears rightly fixed, not at Kefr Kenna 
(De Saulcy, Voyage, Vol. ii. p. 448), but at Kana el-Jelil, about three hours dis- 
tant from Nazareth. See Robinson, Palestine, Vol. ii. p. 846 sq., Vol. iii. p. 108 
(ed. 2), and Thomson, Land and the Book, Vol. ii. p. 121 sq. 

4 For details and explanatory remarks the student may be especially referred 
to the commentaries of Maldonatus, Liicke, and Meyer, to the exquisite contem- 
plation of Bp. Hall, Book 11. 5, to Trench, Notes on the Miracles, p: 96 sq., and 
to the comments of Lange, Leben Jesu, 11. 4. 4, Part τι. p. 475. The supposed 
typical relations are alluded to in a somewhat striking sermon of Bp. Copleston, 


118 THE EARLY JUDMAN MINISTRY. Leer. III. 


however, somewhat profitably pause on one portion of 
it, the address of the Virgin to our Lord, and the an- 
swer He returned, which has been thought to involve 
some passing difficulties, but which a consideration of the 
previous circumstances, combined with a due recognition 
of Jewish customs, tends greatly to elucidate. In the 
first place let us not forget, —if we may place any reliance 
upon modern customs as illustrative of ancient,’ — that 
the fact of guests adding contributions to an entertainment 
which extended over several days is by no means singular 
or unprecedented. With this let us combine the remem- 
brance that the Lord and His five disciples had, as it 
would appear, come unexpectedly,’ a few hours only before 
the commencement of the marriage feast. In the next 
place let us reflect how more than natural it would be for 
these disciples —two of whom, as we are 
specially told by the Evangelist, had heard 
the significant announcement of the Baptist, “ Behold the 


John i. 37. 


Remains, p. 256. Compare with it Augustine, in Joann. Tractat. 1x. 5, Vol. iii. 
p- 146 (ed. Migné), where very similar views will also be found. 

1 The writer of this note was lately informed by a converted Jew on whom 
reliance could be placed, that it was not at all uncommon for the guests ata 
wedding-feast to make contributions of wine when there seemed likely to be a 
deficiency, and that such cases had fallen under his own observation. Be this 
as it may, it seems at any rate clear that the marriage-feasts usually lasted as 
long as seven days (Judges xiy. 12, 15; Tobit xi. 10), and it is surely not unrea- 
sonable to suppose that in the present case the givers of the feast were of humble 
fortunes (Lightfoot conjectures it to have been at the house of Mary, the wife of 
Cleophas. Compare Greswell, Dissert. xv11. Vol. ii. p. 120), and, as Bp. Taylor 
quaintly says, ““had more company than wine.” — Life of Christ, 1.10.5. For 
further notices and references, see Winer, RWB. Art. ‘‘ Hochzeit,” Vol. i. p. 
499 sq. 

2 The only statement that might seem indirectly to militate against this is the 
comment of St. John, ἐκλήϑη δὲ καὶ ὁ Ἰησοῦς καὶ of μαϑηταὶ αὐτοῦ εἰς γάμον, 
ch. 11. 2. If, however, we date the “third day ” (ver. 1), as seems most natural, 
from the day last-mentioned (ch. i. 44), and estimate the distance from Bethany 
on the Jordan to Cana, our Lord could searcely have arrived at the last-men- 
tioned place till the very day specified. Compare Wieseler, Chron. Synops. 11. 3, 
p. 253. The ἐκλήϑη then must be referred to the time when our Lord and His 
followers arrived, and its introduction accounted for, as slightly distinguishing 
the newly-arrived and just-invited guests from the Virgin, who had been there 
perhaps for some little time. Comp. Meyer in loc., and Lange, Leben Jesu, 11. 4. 
4, Part 11. p. 476, whose date, however, for the τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ τρίτῃ does not seem 
tenable. 


Lect. III. THE EARLY JUDHAN MINISTRY. 119 


Lamb of God,” and another of whom had recognized in 
our Lord the very One whom prophets had 
foretold —to have already made such com- 
munications to the Virgin' as might well 
lead her to expect some display of our Lord’s changed 
position and relations. He who a few weeks before had 
left Galilee the unnoted son of Joseph the carpenter, 
now returns, with five followers, the more than accredited 
teacher, yea, as one of those followers had not hesitated 
to avow, as the Son of God? and the King 
of Israel. Wrought upon by these strange 
tidings, and with all the long treasured re- 
membrances of her meditative heart brought 
up freshly before her,*? how natural, then, becomes that 


Ver. 36. 
Ver. 46. 


Johni. 49. 


Luke ii. 19. 


1 Though we are not positively constrained ‘by the tenor of the narrative to 
fix the miracle on the very day that our Lord arrived (comp. Wordsw. and 
Liicke in loc.), it must be admitted that on the whole such an adjustment 
seems slightly the most probable. Compare ver. 10, in which the remarks of the 
ἀρχιτρίκλινος seem to have reference to a single festal meal, the beginning and 
end of which it contrasts. Even in this case, however, the disciples could easily 
have had time to communicate to the Virgin enough of what they had heard, 
felt, and observed in reference to their venerated Master to arouse hopes and 
expectations in the mother’s heart. Compare Theophyl. and Euthym. in Joc., 
both of whom, however, slightly over-estimate the Virgin’s knowledge of what 
had recently happened. 

2 Most modern, and some ancient expositors, explain away the title here given 
by Nathanael to our Lord as implying no more than “the Messiah,” or, to use 
the language of Theophylact, one who “‘on account of His virtue was adopted 
as the Son of God” (υἱοϑετηϑέντα τῷ Θεῷ). Perhaps the further title assigned 
by Nathanael, and still more our Lord’s reply (ver. 51) may seem partly to favor 
this view. It will be well, however, not to forget that this assertion was made 
by Nathanael after our Lord had evinced a knowledge above that of man (ver. 
48), which might well have awakened in the breast of that guileless Israelite some 
feeling of the true nature of Him who was now speaking with him. So rightly, 
Cyril. Alex. in loc., and Augustine, in Joann. Tract. vit. 20, 21. 

8 Though we certainly must not adopt the rash and indeed anti-scriptural 
view (comp. John ii. 11) spoken approvingly of by Maldonatus, and even par- 
tially adopted by Liicke (p. 470), that the Virgin had previously witnessed mir- 
acles performed by our Lord in private, we may yet with reason believe that she 
ever retained a partial consciousness of the real nature of her Divine Son, and 
that the mysterious past was ever freshly remembered, when the present served 
in avy way to call it up again: πάντα συνετήρει ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτῆς, καὶ ἐκ 
τούτων ἐλογίζετο τὸν εξ ἡ ὑπὲρ ἄνϑρωπον δύνασϑαι. Theophylact in loc. (p. 
584, Paris, 1631),—but with too definite a reference to an expected special 
ϑαυματουργία. See below, page 120, note 2. 


120 THE EARLY JUDZAN MINISTRY. Lect. III. 


significant comment of the Virgin, “they have no wine,” 
—a comment that may have alike implied that the free 
hand of unexpected guests might supply a want in part 
occasioned by them? (for this the order to the servants 
may fully justify us attributing to the Virgin), and also 
may have dimly expressed the hope that the Holy Jesus 
would use these circumstances of partial publicity for the 
sake of revealing His true character to the assembled 
guests.” Under these assumptions how full of meaning 
does the Lord’s answer now appear. How solemnly yet 
how tenderly He reminds the mother that earthly rela- 
tions must now give place to heavenly,’ and that the 


1 The comments of Luthardt on this exquisitely natural and strikingly char- 
acteristic remark of the Virgin-mother deserve here to be quoted. “It is a 
delicate trait,” says this thoughtful writer, ‘‘ that she does no more than call 
her Son’s attention to the deficiency. She feels such confidence in Him, yea, 
and such reverence towards Him, that she believes that she neither need nor 
ought to say anything further. Of His benevolent nature she has already had 
many anexperience; and that He is full of wisdom, and can find ways and 
means, where others mark them not, she knows full well. More, however, was 
not necessary, — especially where there was this in addition, that the presence of 
Jesus and His followers had helped to cause the deficiency, — than with humility 
to direct His attention to it.”,— Das. Johann. Evang. Vol.i. p. 115. We may 
here pause for a moment to advert to the number of the waterpots. Lightfoot 
(Hor. Hebr. in loc.) simply considers the wants of the ‘‘ multitudo jam presens,” 
and probably rightly; it is, however, worth a passing consideration whether it 
depended in any way on the siz newly arrived guests. 

2 This would seem to be a correct estimate of the exact state of feeling in the 
mother’s heart. As Bp. Hall well says, ‘‘she had good reason to know the 
Divine nature and power of her son” (Contempl. 11. 5): she felé that He could 
display a more than mortal power, and she now /onged that He would give 
proof of it. We thus avoid on the one hand the over-statement of the earlier 
commentators, that this was a definite exhortation to perform a miracle (εἰς Td 
ϑαῦμα προτρέπει, Cyril); and on the other we avoid the serious under-state- 
ment of many modern writers (Luthardt even partly included), that it was a 
request referring merely to assistance to be given in some natural way,— how, 
the speaker knew not. See, for example, Meyer in loc., who states this latter 
view in a very objectionable form. 

8 Τ has been remarked by Luthardt (loc. cit.), and before him by Bp. Hall 
(Contempl. l. c.), that in His answer our Lord here addresses the Virgin as γύναι 
(ver. 4), and not μῆτερ, --- ἃ term which, though marking all respect, and subse- 
quently used by our Lord in a last display of tenderness and love (John xix. 26), 
still seems to indicate the now changed relation between the Messiah and Mary 
of Nazareth. That our Lord’s words contained a tender reproof is certain, and 
that it was felt so is probable; but, as the Virgin’s direction to the servants 
clearly shows, it could not repress the longings of the mother, or alter the con- 
victions of the all but conscious Deipara. 


Lect. III. THE EARLY JUDHAN MINISTRY. 191 


times and seasons in which the Eternal Son is to display 
His true nature are not to be hastened, even by the long- 
‘ings of maternal love. The Lord’s manifestation, however, 
takes place, the miracle is performed, and its 
immediate effect is to confirm the faith of 
the five disciples, who now appear before us as the first 
fruits of the ingathering of the Church. 

Immediately after the performance of this first miracle 
the Lord, with His mother, His brethren, ΡΩΝ 
and His disciples, go down to Capernaum,! ἃ pernaum, and jour- 

= = Ξ ney to Jerusalem. 
place, which, as the residence of one of His 
followers, but still more as a convenient point for joining 
the pilgrim-companies now forming for the paschal journey 
to Jerusalem, would at this time be more suitable for a 
temporary sojourn than the secluded Nazareth. After a 


John τὶ. 11. 


1 The exactrsite of Capernaum has been much contested. See Robinson, Pal- 
estine, Vol. iii. p. 348 sq. (ed. 2), where the question is discussed at considerable 
length, and the site fixed at Khan Minyeh, a place not far from the shore of the 
lake and at the northern extremity of the plain of Gennesareth. Comp. Vol. ii. 
p- 403. On the whole, however, the name, ruins, position, and prevailing tradi- 
tion seem justly to incline us to fix the site at Tell Him, a ruin-bestrewed and 
slightly elevated spot on a small projecting curve of the shore, about one hour in 
distance nearer the head of the lake than Khan Minyeh. See esp. Thomson, 
Land and the Book, Vol. i. p. 542 sq., Ritter, Erdkunde, Vol. xv. p. 899, Van de 
Velde, Memoir (accompaning map) p. 302, and Williams in Smith’s Dict. of 
Geogr. s. v. Vol. i. p. 504. 

2 This observation seems justified by the fact that the western shores of the 
lake of Gennesareth were at that time extremely populous, and scenes of a 
bustle and activity of life that could be found nowhere else in Palestine, except at 
Jerusalem (see Stanley, Palestine, chap. x. p. 870); and further by the fact that 
there were at least three routes of considerable importance that led from the 
neighborhood of the lake to the south. The traveller of that day might join the 
great Egypt and Damascus road, where it passes nearest to the lake (near Khan 
Minyeh; see Robinson, Palestine, Vol. ii. p. 405, Van de Velde, Memoir, p. 226), 
and leaving it two or three miles W.S.W. of Nain proceed south through Sama- 
ria; or secondly, he might journey along the lake to Scythopolis (Beisan), and 
thence by the ancient Egypt and Midian road to Ginza (see Winer, RWB. Art 
“‘ Strassen,” Vol. ii. p. 589, Van de Velde, Memoir, p. 238), and so onward by the 
Jerusalem and Galilee road to Shechem and the south; or thirdly, he might take 
the then more frequented but now little known route from the south end of the 
lake through Perea (comp. Van de Velde, Memoir, p. 288, Ritter, Erdkunde 
(Palastina), § 18, Part xv. p. 1001 sq.), and across the Jordan to Jericho, and so 
to Jerusalem. For further information on this somewhat important subject, the 
student may be referred to Reland, Palestina, 11. 3, Vol. i. p. 404 (Traject. 1714); 
Winer, RWB. (loc. cit.); the various itineraries in Ritter, Erdkunde (Paldstina), 
Part xv.; and the useful list of routes in Van de Velde, Memoir, pp. 188---268, 


li 


122 THE EARLY JUDAAN MINISTRY. Lect. IE. 


stay of but a few days, our Lord and His disciples now 
bend their steps to Jerusalem, to celebrate 
the passover,'—the first passover of our 
Lord’s public ministry. 
The first act is one of great significance, the expulsion 
tad fete She buyers and sellers from the temple, — 
machen as oe act repeated two years afterwards with 
similar circumstances of holy zeal.for the 
sanctity of His Father’s house.2?, How strange it is that 
the thoughtful Origen should have found any difficulties 
in this authoritative act of the Messiah, or should have 
deemed incongruous and unsuited to the dignity of his 
Master what in the narrative of the Evangelist appears to 
be so natural and intelligible.’ If we closely consider the 
words of the original, we have presented to us only the 
very natural picture of the Redeemer driving out from the 
court of the Gentiles the sheep and oxen, that base huck- 
stering and traffic had brought within the od enclosure. 
What is there here unseemly, what is there startling, in 
finding that the Lord of the Temple not only drives forth 


John ii. 12. 


1 It is not mentioned positively that the disciples accompanied our Lord, but it 
is certain that they were present at Jerusalem and witnessed the purgation of the 
temple. See John ii.17, where the ἐμνήσφησαν is not to be referred to any 
future time (Olsh.), but to the period in question. See Meyer in loc., and comp. 
Origen, in Joann. Tom. x. 16, Vol. iv. p. 186 (ed. Bened.). 

2 That this is not to be identified with the purgation of the temple mentioned 
by the Synoptical Evangelists (Matt. xxi. 12 sq., Mark xi. 15 sq., Luke xix. 45 
sq.), is the opinion of the patristic writers (see Origen, in Joann. Tom. x. 15, 
Chrysost. ix Matt. Hom. Lxvit. init., and August. de Consensu Evang. τι. 67), 
and is rightly maintained by the majority of the best recent expositors. See 
Meyer in loc., and Ebrard, Ev. Gesch. p. 488. 

3 These difficulties are stated very clearly in his Commentary on St. John, Book 
x. 16, Vol. iv. p. 185 sq. (ed. Bened.), and yet disposed of by no one better than 
himself, when he indicates how actions which in a mere child of man, however 
authorized, would have been met with resentment and resistance, were in the 
case of our Lord viewed with a startled and perhaps reverential awe, — an awe 
due to that ϑειοτέρα τοῦ Ἰησοῦ δύναμις οἵου τε ὄντος, ὕτε ἐβούλετο, καὶ 
ϑυμὸν ἐχϑρῶν ἀναπτόμενον σβέσαι, καὶ μυριάδων Sela χάριτι περιγένεσϑαι, 
καὶ λογισμοὺς δορυβούντων διασκεδάσαι. loc. cit. p. 186. Comp. Jerome, in 
Matt. xxi. 15, Vol. vii. p. 166 (ed. Vallars.) See some good comments on this 
impressive act in Milman, Hist. of Christianity, τ. 8, Vol. i. p. 164 sq., and a 
quaint but sound, practical sermon by Bp. Lake, Serm. Part Iv. p. 122 sq. 


Lecr. III. THE EARLY JUDAAN MINISTRY. 123 


the animals,! but overthrows the tables of so-called sacred 
coin, tables of unholy and usurious gains, and, with a 
voice and attitude of command, sternly addresses even 
the sellers of the offerings of the poor, — offerings such as 
His own mother had once presented, — and bids them take 
them hence, and make not the house of His Father a house 
of Mammon and merchandise? The half-astonished, half- 
assenting bystanders ask for a sign that might justify or 
accredit such an assumption of authority, and 
a sign is not withheld; a sign which, though 
not understood at the time, appears from subsequent 
notices to have made no slight. impression on those that 
heard it,? and to have been lovingly remembered and veri- 
fied when the dissolved Temple of their Master’s body was 
reared up again on the predicted day. 

But not only by this authoritative act, and these words 
of mystery, but, as St. John has specially recorded, by the 
display of signs and wonders during the celebration of the 


John ii. 19. 


1 It seems not improbable that Meyer (in loc.) is right in referring πάνταϑ (ver. 
15) to τά Te πρόβατα καὶ τοὺς Béas, and that the translation should not be “ and 
the sheep and the oxen” (Auth. Ver.), but, ‘‘ doth the sheep and the oxen,” as in 
the Revised Transl. of St. John, p.5. The true force of the Te—kai is thus pre- 
served (comp. Winer, Gr. § 53.4, p. 389), and the sacred narrative freed from 
one at least of the objections which others beside Origen have felt in the 
Saviour’s use of the φραγέλλιον against the sellers as well as against the animals 
they sold. It may be observed that our Lord speaks to the “sellers of doves,” 
not perhaps that he regarded them with greater consideration, (De Wette), — 
for compare Matt. xxi. 12, Mark xi. 15,— but simply because the animals could 
be driven forth, while these latter offerings could only be removed. 

2 That these words of our Lord referred te His body, which stood to the 
Temple in the relation of type to antitype, is the distinct declaration of the 
inspired Evangelist (John ii. 21), and has justly been regarded by all the older 
expositors as the only true and possible interpretation of the words. To assert, 
then, that the reference was simply to the breaking up of the older form of . 
. Teligious worship and the substitution of a purer form in its place (Herder, 
Liicke, De Wette), is plainly to contradict that Evangelist who was blessed with 
the deepest insight into the mind of His divine Master, and further to substitute 
what is illogical and inexact for what is clear, simple, and consistent. See esp. 
Meyer in loc. (p. 95, ed. 2), who has ably vindicated the authentic interpretation 
of the words. See also Stier, Disc. ef our Lord, Vol.i. p. 72 sq.; and on the 
eternal truth that our Lord did raise Himself, Pearson, Creed, Art. v. Vol. i. p. 
302 sq. (ed. Burt.). The futile objection founded on the supposed enigmatical 
character of the declaration is well disposed of by Chrysostom, in loc. Vol. viii. 
p. 155 Ε (ed. Bened. 2). 


194 THE EARLY JUDMAN MINISTRY. Lecr. TIL 


festival, the deep heart of the people was stirred. Many 

believed, and among that many was one of 

by ae aa the members of the Sanhedrin! whose name 

πως is not unhonored in the Gospel history. He 

who at this passover sought the Lord under 

cover of night, and to whom the Lord was pleased to un- 

fold the mystery of the new birth,? was so blessed by the 

regenerating power of the Spirit as to be emboldened at 

a later period to plead for the Lord in the open day, and to 

do honor to His crucified body. On that 

ean mysterious interview, which probably took 
Ch. xix. 39. 

The discourse of Place towards the end of the paschal week, 

our Lord with δος T cannot here enlarge;* but I may venture 

to make one remark to those who desire to 

enter more deeply into the meaning of our Lord’s words, 


1 Of this timid yet faithful man nothing certain is known beyond the notices 
in St. John’s Gospel, here and ch. vii. 50, xix. 39. The title he here bears, 
ἄρχων τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων (iii. 1), seems to show that he was a member of the San- 
hedrin (comp. ch. vii. 26, 50, Luke xxiv. 20; Joseph. Antiqg. xx. 1. 2); and the 
further comment of our Lord (ὁ διδάσκαλος τοῦ Ἰσραήλ, ver. 10) may favor 
the supposition that he belonged to that portion of the venerable body which 
was not of Levitical or priestly descent, but is spoken of in the Gospels under 
the title of γραμματεῖς τοῦ λαοῦ. See Knapp, Scripta Var. Argum. Vol. i. p. 
200, note; and comp. Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr. in Matt. ii. 4, Vol. ii. p. 260 (Roterod. 
1686). Tradition says that Nicodemus was afterwards baptized by St. Peter and 
St. John, and expelled from his office and from the city. See Photius, Biblioth. 
§ 171. 

2 Whether the word avwsev (ver. 8) is to be taken (a) in a temporal reference, 
and translated “anew” with the Vulgate, Pesh.-Syriac, Coptic, and Ethiopic 
Versions, and with Chrysostom (who, however, gives the other view) and 
Euthymius, or (Ὁ) to be taken in a local reference, and translated ‘“‘ from above,” 
with the Gothic and Armenian Versions, and with Origen and Cyril, it is very 
hard to decide. The latter is perhaps most in accordance with the usage (ver. 
31) and general teaching of St. John (see Meyer én /oc.), the former with the 
apparent tenor of the dialogue. 

8 For a good general exposition of this mysterious discourse of our Lord with 
the timid ruler, see generally, of the older writers, Chrysostom, in Joann. Hom, 
XXIV.—xXXvIII., Cyril Alex., in Joann. Vol. iv. p. 145—156, Augustine, in Joann. 
Tractat. x11. cap. 8, Euthymius and Theophylact in loc.; and of the modern 
expositors, Knapp. Script. Var. Argum. Vol. i. p. 199—254, Meyer, Kommentar. 
p- 101 sq., Stier, Disc. ef our Lord, Vol. iv. p. 859 sq. (Clark), and the excellent 
work of Luthardt, Johan. Evang. Vol. i. p. 864 βᾳ. Some good remarks on the 
character of Nicodemus will be found in Evans, Scripture Biography, Vol. ii. 
p. 233 sq.; and an ingenious but not satisfactory defence of his timidity in 
Niemeyer, Charakt. Vol. i. p. 118 sq. 


Lecr. III. THE EARLY JUDHAN MINISTRY. 13h 


and it is this, that if we remember, as I said in my first 
lecture that in St. John’s Gospel our Lord especially 
appears before us as the reader of the human heart, we 
shall be prepared to find, as apparently we do find, that He 
often answers rather the thoughts than the words of the 
speaker, and alludes to the hidden feeling rather than the 
expressed sentiment. If we bear this in mind, I verily 
believe that, by the help of God, we shall be enabled to 
gain some οἷον to understanding the more difficult parts 
of this most solemn and profound revelation. 

With this interview the occurrences of this eventful 
passover appear to have closed. Our Lord Piero A! 


erceiving, by that same knowledge of the  Jerusatem and re- 
8 δ 


. . tires to the N. Ε. 
human heart to which I have just alluded, parts or Judea. 


that He could no longer trust Himself even ke 
with those who had heard His teaching and 

beheld His miracles, now leaves Jerusalem, most probably 
for the northeastern portion of Judea,’ in the vicinity 
of the Jordan, where we seem to have good grounds for 
supposing that He was pleased to abide till nearly the end 


1 See p. 44, note 8. 

2 Thus, for example, at the yery outset, our Lord’s first words can scarcely be 
considered an answer to the words with which Nicodemus first addresses Him, 
but may very suitably be conceived an answer to the question of his heart, which 
seems rather to have related to the mode of gaining an entrance into the king- 
dom of God. Was the lowly but wonder-working Teacher whom he addressed 
the veritable Way, the Truth, and the Light, or was there some other way still 
compatible with the old and familiar tenets of Judaism? Chrysostom seems 
rather to imply that our Lord regards Nicodemus as not yet to have passed even 
into the outer porch of true knowledge (ὅτε οὐδὲ τῶν προϑύρων τῆς προσηκού- 
ons γνώσεως ἐπέβη), and that He does not so much address Nicodemus as state 
generally a mystic truth, which he knew not of, but which might well arrest 
and engage his thoughts. Comment. in Joann. XxIVv. Vol. viii. p. 161 (ed. Bened. 
2). The very different views that have been taken of these opening words will 
be seen in the commentaries above referred to. 

8 The Evangelist only says, ἦλϑεν 6 Ἰησοῦς καὶ of μαδηταὶ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν 
Ιουδαίαν γῆν (ch. 111. 29}; but from the closely-connected mention of the adminis- 
tration of baptism, it does not stem unreasonable to suppose, with Chrysostom, 
that our Lord retired to the Jordan (ἐπὶ τὸν "lopddvnv πολλάκις ἤρχετο), and 
perhaps sought again the place where He Himself had been baptized by John, 
(see p. 108, note 2), and to which numbers might still be thronging. Lightfoot 
suggests a place more exactly to the north of Jerusalem, and closer to the direct 
route to Galilee, See Harmon. Quat. Evang. Vol. i. p. 446 (Roterod. 1686}. 


11" 


126 THE EARLY JUDMHAN MINISTRY. Lect. ΠῚ. 


of the year. There the sacred narrative tells us He bap- 
tized by the hands of His disciples,’ and so 
wrought upon the hearts of the people that 
He eventually gathered round Him believers and disciples, 
which outnumbered those of John, many as 
"er-l- there seems reason for supposing them now 
The final testi- . 
mony of the Bap- to have become. The Baptist was still free. 
tist. . 
ΑΔΕ He was now at “Ζθηοη, ἢ near Salim, a place of 
waters in the northern portion of the valley 
of the Jordan,‘ and from which he might afterwards have 
passed by the fords of Succoth into the territory of the 
licentious Antipas. At this spot was deliv- 
ered his final testimony to the Redeemer, — 
a testimony, perhaps, directed against a jealousy on the 
part of His disciples,®> which might have been recently 


John iv. 2. 


John tii. 27—36. 


1 The reason why our Lord did not Himself baptize has formed a subject of 
comment since the days of Tertullian. We can, however, scarcely adopt that 
early writer’s view that it was owing to the difficulty of our Lord baptizing in 
His own name (de Baptism. cap. 11), but may plausibly adopt the opinion hinted 
at by the poetical paraphrast Nonnus (οὐ γὰρ ἄναξ βάπτιζεν ἐν ὕδατι, p. 30, ed. 
Passow), and well expressed by Augustine (“ prebebant discipuli ministerium 
corporis, prebebat ille adjutorium majestatis,” in Joann. Tract. xv. 4. 3), — that 
baptism was a ministerial act, and thus more suitably performed by disciples 
than by their Lord. Compare Acts x. 48, 1 Cor. i.:17. 

2 We can, of course, form no exact estimate of the actual numbers of disciples 
which John might have now gathered round him. As, however, the inspired 
narrative distinctly specifies the multitudes that came to his baptism (Matt. iil. 5; 
Mark i. 5; Luke iii. 7), and alludes to the different classes and callings of which 
they were composed (Luke iii. 12), we may reasonably infer that the number of 
his actual disciples and followers could by no means have been inconsiderable. 

3 Some plausible but purely contextual arguments for fixing the site of Anon 
in the wilderness of Judza will be found in Wieseler, Chron. Synops. p. 249 sq. 
Such arguments, however, cannot safely be urged against the direct statements 
of early writers. See next note. 

4 There seems good reason for identifying the Salim, near to which the 
Evangelist tells us John was baptizing, with some ruins at the northern base ot 
Tell Ridghah, near to which is a beautiful spring, and a Wely (Saint’s tomb), 
called Sheikh Salim. See Van de Velde, Memoir, p. 345. Robinson appears to 
doubt this (Palestine, Vol. iii. p. 383, ed. 2), but without sufficient reason. The 
mere coincidence of name might perhaps be an unsafe argument, if the position 
of the place did not accord with the position of Salim as fixed by Jerome in his 
Onomasticon (Art. ‘‘/inon”’), where ASnon and Salim are both noticed as being 
eight Roman miles from Scythopolis. See Van de Velde, Syria and Palestine, 
Vol. ii. p 345 sq. 

5 The words of the sacred text (John iii. 26) give us some grounds for supposing 


ΤΕστ. III. THE EARLY σΡΖΙΑΝ MINISTRY. 12% 


called out by the Jew! with whom they had been contend- 
ing on the subject of purifying. That testi- 
mony was in one respect mournfully pro- 
phetic. He had now begun, even as he him- 
self said, to decrease; his ministry was over; the Bride- 
groom had come, and the friend of the bridegroom had 
heard his voice, and the joy of that faithful 
friend was now completed and full. Thus 
it was that apparently at the close of this year, or, accord- 
ing to a recent chronologer, two or three months later, 
the fearless rebuker of sin, though it be in kings’ palaces, 
is seized on by the irritated yet superstitious Antipas, and, 


Ver. 25. 
Ver. 80. 


John iii. 29. 


it possible that feelings of doubt or jealousy might have been shown by some of 
St. John’s disciples, — feelings which perhaps might have remained even to a 
later period, and might have been one of the causes which led to the mission of 
the two disciples recorded in Matt. xi. 2 sq., Luke vii. 18 sq. There is an expres- 
sion of something unlooked for, and perhaps not wholly approved of, in the ἴδε 
οὗτος βαπτίζει καὶ πάντες ἔρχονται πρὸς αὐτόν. So Augustine (‘moti sunt 
discipuli Johannis; concurrebatur ad Christum, veniebatur ad Johannem”’), 
and still more distinctly Chrysost. zn loc. 

1 There seems no reasonable doubt that the true reading is Ἰουδαίου, and not 
*Iovdaiwy (Rec.). The evidence for the former, which includes eleven uncial 
MSS. in addition to the Alexandrian and Vatican, will be found in the new 
edition of Tischendorf’s New Test. Vol. i. p. 564. What the exact subject of the 
contention was we are not told, further than that it was περὶ καϑαρισμοῦ (ver. 
25); it might well have arisen, as Augustine suggests, from the statement on the 
part of the Jew [August. adopts the plural],—‘‘ majorem esse Christum, et ad 
ejus baptismum debere coneurri.’’ — Jn Joann. Tract. x11. 3. 8. 

2 The exact date of the captivity of the Baptist is a question of great difficulty, 
and perhaps can never be settled. See Winer, RWB. Art. ‘‘ Johannes der Tau- 
fer,” Vol. i. p. 590. Wieseler, in a very elaborate discussion (Chron. Synops. p. 
223—251), has endeavored to show that it took place about the feast of Purim in 
the following year (March 19, A. U.c. 782), and that he was beheaded a few days 
before the Passover (April 17) of the same year. The latter date seems made out 
(see Chron. Synops. p. 292 sq.), but the former is open to many objections, two of 
which may be specified: (a) the way in which our Lord speaks of the Baptist 
(John vy. 33); and (δ) the brief space of time that is thus necessarily assigned to 
his captivity,—a time apparently as unduly short as that assigned by Greswell 
is unnecessarily long. See Dissert. x.(Append.) Vol. iii. p. 425. It seems then, 
on the whole, safer to adopt the first view in the text, and to suppose that St. 
John was put into prison shortly before our Lord’s present departure into Gali- 
lee, and that the ἀναχώρησις into that country specified by the Synoptical 
Evangelists (Matt. iv. 12; Mark i. 14; Luke iy. 14) coincides with that here speci- 
fied by St. John. Fora brief consideration of the difficulties this view has been 
supposed to involve, see Lect. Iv. p. 148, note 8, and compare the remarks of 
Tischendorf, Synops. Evang. p. xxv. 


128 THE EARLY 90 ΑΝ MINISTRY. Lect. IIL. 


after a short imprisonment in the dungeons of Macherus,! 
eae falls a victim to the arts of the vengeful 
pared with ‘wark Herodias. 
ogee This capture of the Baptist, if we adopt 
the earlier date, might, perhaps, have soon become known 
to our Lord, and might have suggested some thoughts of 
danger to Himself and to His infant Church from which 
now He might have deemed it meet to withdraw. Per- 
haps with this feeling, but certainly, as St. John specially 
tells us, with the knowledge that the blessed results and 
success of His ministry had reached the ears of the malev- 
olent Pharisees, our Lord suspends His first 
ministry in Judza, a ministry that had now 
lasted eight months, and prepares to return by the shortest 
route, through Samaria,’ to the safe retirement of the hills 
of Galilee. 
It was now late in December,’ four months, as the narra- 
tive indirectly reminds us, from the harvest, when the Lord 


John iv. 1. 


1 See Josephus, Antig. xvii. 5.2; and fora description of the place, ib. Bell. 
Jud. vil. 6.2. From this latter passage, and especially from the notice of the 
fine palace built there, we may perhaps suppose it to have been the scene of the 
festival (Matt. xiv. 6; Mark vi. 21) which preceded the Baptist’s murder. See, 
however, Wieseler, Chron. Synops. p. 250 sq., who places the scene at Livias. 
The site of Machzrus is supposed by Seetzen to be now occupied by a ruined 
fortress on the north end of Jebel Attariis, which is said still to bear the name 
of Mkauer. See Ritter, Zrdkunde, Part xv. 1, p. 577. 

2 Our Lord was now probably in the northeastern, or, as the ἔδεε δὲ αὐτὸν 
kK. τ. A. (John iv. 4) may be thought to suggest, more northerly portions of 
Judea. Thither he might have gradually moved from the more immediate 
neighborhood of the Jordan, towards which he seems first to have gone. See 
above, p. 126. Our Lord on one occasion at least (Luke ix. 51 sq.) adopted the 
route through Samaria, in preference to the route through Perea. At a Jater 
time the journey through Samaria was occasionally rendered unsafe by the open 
hostility of the Samaritans (see Joseph. Antiq. xx. 6. 2), some traces of which 
we find even in our Lord’s time. Comp. Luke ix. 538; and see Lightfoot, Harm. 
Part 111. Vol. i. p. 460 (Roterod. 1686). 

3 Stanley (Palestine, ch. v. p. 240, note, ed. 2) fixes it in January or February, 
but in opposition to Robinson, Harmony, p. 19 (Tract Society), who adopts an 
earlier date. See above, p. 107, note 3. 

4 See John iy. 35, οὐχ ὑμεῖς λέγετε ὅτι ἔπι τετράμηνός ἐστιν καὶ ὃ ϑερισμὸϑ 
ἔρχεται, --- ἃ passage which, from the distinctness and precision of the language 
(observe the ἔτι and compare it with ἤδη which follows), has been rightly pressed 
by some of the best expositors as affording a note of time. See Meyer én loc., and 
especially Wieseler, Chron. Synops. p. 214 sq. The arguments in favor of its 


Lect. III. THE EARLY JUDAHAN MINISTRY. 129 


crossed the rich plain that skirts the southern and east- 
ern bases of Ebal and Gerizim, and, weary para 
with travel, rested on His way by a well, which ney through Sama- 
even now the modern pilgrim can confidently 

identify. His disciples had gone forward up the beautiful 
but narrow valley? to the ancient neighboring city, to which, 
as it would seem, Jewish prejudice had long since given 
the name of Sychar,? when the grace of God brings one 
poor sinful woman, either from the city or the fields, to 
draw water at Jacob’s well. We well remember the mem- 
orable converse that followed: how the conviction of sin 
began to work within, and how the amazed woman became 
the Lord’s first herald in Sychem, — the first-fruits of the 
great harvest that but a few years afterwards was to be 
gathered in by Philip the Deacon.‘ 


being merely a proverbial expression (comp. Alford in loc.) are extremely weak, 
and are well disposed of by Wieseler, doc. cit. A different and very improbable 
note of time is deduced from the passage by Greswell, Dissert. 1x. (Append.), 
Vol. iii. p. 408. 

1 For a good description of Jacob’s well, see Robinson, Palestine, Vol. ii. p- 
286 sq. Compare also Van de Velde, Syria and Palestine, Vol. i. p. 399, and 
Thomson, The Land and the Book, Vol. ii. p. 206, where a sketch is given of this 
profoundly interesting spot. For a possible identification of this well with 
the "215 7° of the Talmudical writers, see Lightfoot, Chorogr. Vol. ii. p. 586 
sq. (Roterod. 1686), and compare Wieseler, Chron. Synops. p. 256, note. 

2 For a description of this valley, see Van de Velde, Syria and Palestine, Vol. 
i. p. 886 sq., and compare Stanley, Palestine, ch. v. p. 282. 

8 The name of Sychar (not Sichar; see Tischendorf in loc.) does not appear 
to have arisen from a mere curruption of the ancient name of Shechem (Olsh., 
al.), but from a studiedly contemptuous change with reference either to “9. 
** falsehood,” ὁ. 6. idol-worship (compare Heb. ii. 18, and Reland, Dissert. Mise. 
Vol. i. p. 241), or to "42Y, “ drunkard ” (comp. Isaiah xxviii. 1, and Lightfoot, 
Chorogr. Vol. ii. p. 586, Roterod.), and in the time of St. John had become the 
regular name of the place. Compare, however, Acts vii. 16, where Stephen, 
perhaps designedly, recurs to the ancient name, and Wieseler, Chron. Synops. 
p. 256 sq. (note), where the name is connected, apparently less probably, with 
“2D="2U, “to hire,” in reference to Gen. xxxiii. 19. It is now called Nabu- 
lus, by a contraction from the name of Neapolis, afterwards given it by the 
Romans; but it seems probable that the ancient city was larger and extended 
nearer to Jacob’s well. See Robinson, Palestine, Vol. ii. p. 292 (ed. 2), where 
there will be found a full and excellent description of the place and its vicinity. 
Compare also Thomson, The Land and the Book, Vol. ii. p. 200 sq., where 
a sketch will be found of the entrance into the city, Van de Velde, Syria and 
Palestine, Vol. i. p. 886 sq., and a photographic view by Frith, Zgypt and 
Palestine, Part iv. 8. 

4 See Acts viii. 5 sq., where the thankful reception of the Gospel on the part 


130 THE EARLY JUDMHAN MINISTRY. ~ Leer. II. 


The faith of these Samaritans and the effect produced 
» on them, even when contrasted with that 

produced by our Lord during His ministry 

in Juda, deserves more than a passing 
notice. In Judea our Lord had abode eight months; in 
Sychem He spends but two days. In Ju- 
dea He works many miracles; in Samaria 
He works none.’ And yet we read that in Sychem many 
believed even the vague tidings of the heart- 
stricken woman, and hastened forth to wel- 
come Him, whom in the fulness of a faith that overstepped 
all narrow national prejudices they believed and acknowl- 
edged as the true Messiah, the Restorer, or perhaps rather 
Converter, as He was termed in their own dialect,? the 


The faith of the 
Samaritans, ° 


John ti. 23. 


Ch. iv. 39. 


of the Samaritans is especially noticed; and compare Baumgarten in loc. § 14, 
Vol. i. p. 184 sq. (Clark). That the “city of Samaria,” to which the Deacon 
went down from Jerusalem, was the city of Sychem, does not appear certain 
(Meyer, on Acts viii. 5), though it may reasonably be considered highly probable. 

1 See some good remarks of Chrysostom on the faith of these Samaritans, 
when contrasted with that of the Jews. It seems, however, a little rhetorical to 
say that the latter ‘‘ were doing everything to expel Him from their country,” 
while the former were entreating Him to stay. See Hom. in Joann. xxxv. Vol. 
viii. p. 232. Throughout the Gospel-history the multitudes in Judza or else- 
where appear almost always to have gladly received our Lord, except when 
instigated to a contrary course by His true and bitter enemies, the ruling and 
hierarchical party (the Ιουδαῖοι of St. John; see Meyer, on John xi. 19) and 
their various satellites. Comp. Matt. xvii. 20, Mark xv. 11. 

2 Much has been written about the expectation of a Messiah on the part of the 
Samaritans. It is not improbable that, as their own letters in modern times 
assert (see Hengstenberg, Christol. Vol. i. p. 66, Clark), they derived it from such 
passages in the Pentateuch as Gen. xlix. 10, Numb. xxiv. 17, Deut. xviii. 15; 
and that, though really foreigners by descent (comp. Robinson, Palestine, Vol. 
ii. p. 289), they still maintained this belief in common with their hated neigh- 
bors, the Jews. At any rate it seems certain that an expectation of a Restorer 
or Converter, under the title of anen or 2771, was entertained among them 
at an earlier period of their history (see Gesenius, Samar. Theol. p. 41 sq., and 
the curious doctrinal hymns published by the same learned editor under the 
title Carmina Samaritana, p. 75 sq.); and we learn from Robinson that even to 
this day, under the name of e/-Muhdy (the Guide), the Messiah is still looked 
for by this singular people. See Palestine, Vol. ii. p. 278, and p. 297 sq., where 
an account is given of the celebrated correspondence maintained at intervals 
between the Samaritans and Joseph Scaliger, Marshall, and other scholars of 
the West. Compare also Winer, RWB., Art. “Samaritaner,” Vol. ii. p. 218. 
The exact meaning of 277 is discussed by Gesenius in the Berlin Jahrb. fur 
Wissensch. Krit. for 1830, p. 651 sq. 


Lect. ΠῚ. THE EARLY JUDAHAN MINISTRY. 131 


Saviour, as they indirectly avow, not of Samaria only, but 
of all the scattered families of the children 
of men. 

But faith astonishing even as that of Samaria might not 
detain Him who came to the lost sheep of the 
house of Israel. After a stay of two memo- pig i Le 
rable days, which the people of Sychem would “αὐ 
gladly have had prolonged, the Lord returns 
to a country that now vouchsafed to receive its prophet? 
only because His miracles at Jerusalem had been such as 
could not be denied. Signs and wonders 
were all that dull-hearted Galilee could ap- 
preciate. Signs and wonders they must see, or, as our 
Lord mournfully says, “they would not be- 
lieve.” We may observe, then, how consistent 
is the narrative which represents our Lord as having chosen 
the scene of His first miracle as His temporary resting- 
place.? He returns to Cana in Galilee, where, 
as St. John significantly adds, “He made the 
water wine.” There He yet again performs a 
second miracle in bringing back to life the dying son of the 


John iv. 42. 


Ver. 45. 


Ver. 48. 


John iv. 46. 
Ver. 54. 


1 The exact meaning of our Lord’s comment record, John iv. 44, αὐτὸς yap 
Ἰησοῦς k. τ. A., is not perfectly clear, owing to the apparent difficulty caused 
by the argumentative γάρ, and the doubtful application of πατρίδι. That this 
latter word does not refer to Judza (Origen, and recently Wieseler, Chron. 
Synops. p. 45), but to Galilee, seems almost certain from the mention of Γαλι- 
Aaia both in the preceding and succeeding verses. The force of the yap is, how- 
ever, less easy to decide upon, but is perhaps’to be sought for in the fact that our 
Lord stayed so short a time with the Samaritans, and avoided rather than courted 
popularity. It is true that he found it in Galilee (ver. 45), but that was because 
He brought it, as it were, from another country. The Galilzans did not honor 
the Lord as their own prophet, but as One whom they had seen work wonders 
at Jerusalem. The explanatory force adopted by Liicke and others does not 
harmonize with the simplicity of the context. 

2 See John iy. 46, ἦλϑεν οὖν [6 ᾿Ιησοῦς] πάλιν εἰς τὴν Kava, — where the οὖν 
seems to imply that the visit of our Lord was in consequence of this disposition 
on the part of the Galileans. He sees the effect which miracles produced upon 
the people, and is pleased so far to condescend to their infirmities as to sojourn 
for a time at the scene of a miracle that must have made a great impression on 
those who witnessed it, and the memory of which His presence among them 
might savingly revive and reanimate. See Chrysostom im loc. Hom. xxv. Vol. 
viii. p. 825. 


132 THE EARLY JUDAAN MINISTRY. Lecvr. III. 


Capernaite nobleman,’ — a miracle which wrought its 
blessed effects on the father and his whole 
household, and may thus perchance have had 

some influence in leading our Lord, three months after- 

wards, when rejected by the wretched mad- 

men of Nazareth, to make Capernaum His 
earthly home.’ 

Our present portion of the Evangelical history contains 

but one more event, —the journey of our 

ton to nak, Lord to Jerusalem, and his miraculous cure 

ar the Jeast of Pu Of the infirm man at the pool of Bethesda. 

Here, I need scarcely remind you, we at once 

find ourselves encountered by a question, on 

the answer to which our whole system of Gospel-harmony 
mainly depends, and on which we find, both in ancient® 
and modern times, the most marked diversity of opinions. 

The question is, what festival does St. John refer to at the 

beginning of the fifth chapter of his Gospel, when he tells 


Ver. 53. 


Luke iv. 29. 


John v.1 86. 


1 From the instances from Josephus of the use of the term βασιλικός, that 
have been collected by Krebs (Obs. in Nov. Test. p. 144), we may perhaps reason- 
ably conclude that the person here specified was not a relative (Chrys. I.), but in 
the service of Herod Antipas (‘‘in famulitio et ministerio regis,” Krebs, ἢ. c.),— 
in what capacity, however, cannot be determined. The opinion that this miracle 
was identical with that of the healing of the centurion’s servant (Matt. viii. 5 
sq., Luke vii. 1 sq.) is mentioned both by Origen (in Joann. Tom. XIII. 60) and 
Chrysostom (in Joann. Hom. xxxv. 2), but very properly rejected by them. 
Nothing really is identical in the two miracles, except the locality of the sufferer, 
and the fact that our Saviour did not see him. See especially Theophylact and 
Euthymius in loc. 

2 For some good comments on the details of this miracle, — one of the charac- 
teristics of which is the performance of the cure by our Lord not only without 
His seeing (as in the case of the centurion’s servant), but when at a distance of 
some miles from the sufferer,—see the commentaries of Origen, Chrysostom, 
Cyril Alex., Theophylact, and Euthymius; and for a general view of the whole, 
Hall, Contempl. 111. 2, and Trench, Miracles, p.117 sq. Compare also Lange, 
Leben Jesu, τι. 4. 10, Part 11. p. 552 sq. 

8 The differences of opinion as to the festival mentioned in John v. 1, are not 
confined to modern writers. Irenzus says that it was at the Passover (Her. 11. 
39), but as we cannot ascertain what reading (ἑορτὴ or 7 ἑορτή, see next note) 
was adopted by this ancient writer, his opinion must be received with some 
reserve. Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, and after them Theophylact and 
Euthymius, with more plausibility, suppose it to have been the feast of Pente- 
cost. See, however, p. 133, note 2. 


Lect. ΤΠ. THE EARLY JUDHAN MINISTRY. 133 


us that “there was a feast of the Jews, and Jesus went up 
to Jerusalem”? The various answers I will 

not now pause to discuss, but will say briefly, 

that, after a prolonged consideration of this difficult sub- 
ject, I venture to think that as the language of St. John, 
according to the correct text,’ and when duly considered, 
does seem distinctly unfavorable to this festival being con- 
sidered as either the Passover or one of the three greater 
festivals,? we may, not without many plausible arguments, 
adopt the view of the best recent harmonists and commen- 
tators, and regard it as the Feast of Purim,®— the com- 


Ver. 1. 


1 The true reading appears certainly to be ἑορτή (Rec.), without the article. It 
has, in addition to secondary authorities, the support of three out of the four 
leading uncial MSS. (the Alex. Vatic., and that of Beza), is specially commented 
on in the Chronicon Paschale (p. 405 sq., ed. Dindorf.), and is adopted by Lach- 
mann, Tischendorf, and the best recent editors. 

2 The principal arguments are as follow, and seem of some weight: (a) the 
omission of the article, which, though sometimes observed when a verb sub- 
stant. precedes (Middleton, Greek Art.; comp. Neander, Life of Christ, p. 234, 
note, Bohn), or when a strictly defining or possessive genitive follows (see exx. 
in Winer, Gramm. § 19. 2. 6), cannot possibly be urged in the case of a merely 
inverted sentence like the present, and where the gen. has no such special and 
defining force. See Winer, Gramm. ἰ. c. Ὁ. 232, note. [The answer to this in 
Robinson, Harmony, p. 199 (Tract. Soc.), has no force, as the cases adduced are 
not out of St. John, wholly different, and easily to be accounted for.] To this 
we may add (Ὁ) the absence of the name of the festival, whereas St. John seems 
always to specify it. Compare ch. ii. 18, vii. 2, and even (in the case of the 
ἐγκαίνια) x.22. Again (6) it seems now generally agreed upon that it was not 
the Pentecost; that if it be a Passover, our Lord would then have been as long a 
time as eighteen months absent from Jerusalem (see Wieseler, Chron. Synops. p. 
217); and that if it be the Feast of Tabernacles, we then, according to Ebrard 
(Krit. der Ev.Gesch. § 37, p. 157), must adopt the highly improbable view that it was 
not the σκηνοπήγια that followed the Passover mentioned ch. ii. 18, but that 
followed a second Passover, which St. John, usually so accurate on this point 
see ch. vi. 4), has not specified. Lastly, (d) if the note of time alluded to, p. 128, 
note 4, be accepted, the difficulties alluded to in (c) will be greatly complicated 
and enhanced. 

3 The arguments in favor of this particular festival, though sufficiently strong 
to have gained the assent of a decided majority of the best recent expositors, 
are still of a dependent and negative character. They are as follows: (a) if the 
note of time derived from John iy. 85 be correct, then the festival here men- 
tioned clearly falls between the end of one year and the Passover of the one 
following (ch. vi. 4), and consequently can be no other than the Feast of Purim, 
which was celebrated on the fourteenth and fifteenth of the month Adar (Esth. 
ix. 21); (b) if, as seems shown in the above note, strong critical as well as exeget- 
ical objections can be urged against any and all of the other festivals that have 
been proposed, then a remaining festival which is only open to objections of a 


12 


134 THE EARLY σΡΖΑΝ MINISTRY. Lect. IIL. 


memorative feast of Esther’s pleading and Haman’s over- 
throw. This festival, it would appear by backward 
computation, must have taken place in this present year 
of our Lord’s life (a. vu. c. 782), on the nineteenth of 
March,’ and, as we may reasonably infer from the narrative, 
a Sabbath-day, — a day on which, according to the ancient, 
though not according to the modern calendar of the Jews, 
this festival could apparently have been celebrated,? and, 
singularly enough, the only instance in which a Sabbath 
could fall upon any one of the festivals of the year in 
question.’ 


weaker and more general character (see below, note 2) deserves serious con- 
sideration; (6) if this date be fixed upon, the chronology of the period between 
it and the following Passover not only admits of an easy adjustment, but also, as 
will be seen in the course of the narrative, involves some striking coincidences 
and harmonies which reflect great additional plausibility upon the supposition. 
For additional notices and arguments, see Anger, de Tempt. in Act. Apost. 1. p. 
24 sq., Wieseler, Chron. Synops. pp. 205—222, Lange, Leben Jesu, Book 11. Part 
I. p. 9; and for perhaps the strongest statement of the counter-arguments, 
Hengstenberg, Christology, Vol. iii. p. 244 sq. (Clark). 

1 For the principles on which this computation rests, see Wieseler, Chron. 
Synops. p. 206 sq., compared with p. 219. Compare also the useful table in 
Tischendorf, Synops. Evang. p. L1.; and for general tables for facilitating such 
calculations, see Browne, Ordo Secl. § 452—455, p. 499 sq. 

2 This seems to be made out by Wieseler, Chron. Synops. p. 219 sq., but it is so 
strongly questioned by Hengstenberg (Christology, Vol. iii. p. 248), who refers 
for proofs to Reland, Antig. Sacr.1v.9, and the special treatise of Shickard, 
on this festival, reprinted in the Critict Sacri, Vol. ii. p. 1188 (ed. Amstelod. 
1698—1732),—that a few comments must be made on the subject. Much seems 
to turn on the question whether the fourteenth of Adar, or, as Hengstenberg 
urges, the day on which the roll of Esther was read,—a day, as will be seen 
from the Mishna, made variable for convenience, — was the true day of the fes- 
tival. With the opening sections of the Tract “ Megillah” before us, we shall 
probably (with Wieseler) decide for the former, especially when we compare 
with the preceding sections the close of sect. 8, where it is said, in answer to the 
general question, ‘‘ when the Megillah may be read before its proper time,” that 
an exception is to be made for places where it is customary for [the country 
people] to assemble on Mondays and Thursdays, but that ‘‘ where that does not 
take place it may only be read on its proper day” (sds TAMAS PUMP PS 
τι2 213). Mishna, p. 182 (De Sola and Raphall’s Transl.). The question is here 
noticed as of some interest, but it may be observed that though it is probable 
from the sacred narrative that the Sabbath on which the miracle was performed 
coincided with the festival, it is not expressly said so; and that even if the Feast 
of Purim could not fall on a Sabbath, the main question would remain wholly 
unaffected by it. See Meyer, on John v. 1, p. 148. 

3 See Wieseler, Chron. Synops. p. 219, and compare the table in Tischendorf, 
Synops. Ev.p.ui. It may be observed that the year now in question was a leap- 


Lect. III. THE EARLY JUDHAN MINISTRY. 135 


It has, I know, been urged that our Lord would never 
have gone up to a-festival of mere earthly 
rejoicing and revelry.t. In answer to this, 
without pausing to compare this merely neg- 
ative statement with the positive arguments which have 
been advanced on the contrary side, let us simply reply, 
that at this festival, in which the hard lot of the poor and 
needy received a passing alleviation, the divine presence 
of Him who came to preach the Gospel to the poor might 
not seem either strange or inappropriate.? In addition to 
this let us not forget that, in the year now under consider- 
ation, the Passover would take place only a month after- 
wards, and that our Lord might well have thought it meet 
to fix His abode at Jerusalem and to commence His 
preaching before the hurried influx of the multitudes that 
came up to the solemnities of the great yearly festival? 

But let us now return to our narrative, and with sadness 
observe how the malice and wickedness of man was per- 


Main oljection to 
this opinion. 


year, and had a second month of Adar; hence the difference between this cal- 
endar and that in Browne, Ordo Secl. § 594, Ὁ. 647, where this fact is not observed. 
For exact information on the difficult subject of the Jewish calendar, see Ideler, 
Handbuch. der Chronol. Vol. i. p. 477 sq., the special work of Ben-David, Gesch. 
des Jud. Kalend. (Berl. 1817). Compare also the Excursus of Wieseler, Chron. 
Synops. p. 487 sq., and Browne, Ordo Secl. § 403 sq. 

1 This objection is urged, though not with much cogency, by Trench, Miracles, 
p. 245. For a full account of the ceremonies at this festival, see the work of 
Shickard, de Festo Purim (Tubing. 1634), above alluded to, p. 184, note 2), and 
compare Winer, RWB. Art. ‘ Purim,” Vol. ii. p. 589. The objection that has 
been founded on St. John’s omission of the special name of this festival, con- 
trasted with his usual habit in similar cases (ch. vii. 2, x. 22), is fairly met by 
Anger, who remarks that while the names of other festivals (6. g. σκηνοπήγια 
and ἐγκαίνια) partially explained themselves, that of the Feast of Purim, under 
its Grecized title (τῶν φρουραὶ or φουραί, or τῆς Μαρδοχαικῆς jmepas), was 
probably felt by the Evangelist as likely to prove unintelligible to the general 
readers for whom the Gospel was designed. — De Tempt. in Act. Apost. p. 27 sq. 

2 See Wieseler, Chron. Synops. p. 222; vigorously, though not very conviuc- 
ingly, opposed by Hengstenberg, who seems to take a somewhat extreme view 
of the revelry and license which prevailed at the festival. See Christology, Vol. 
iii. p. 247. : 

3 A partial illustration of this is supplied by John xi. 55, where it is expressly 
said that ‘‘many went out of the country up to Jerusalem before the Passover, 
to purify themselves.” The iva ἁγνίσωσιν of course does not apply in the pres- 
ent case; but the general fact that there was such a habit of going up before the 
festival is not without significance. 


130 THE EARLY JUDHAN MINISTRY. Lect. III. 


mitted to counteract those counsels of mercy, and to 
shorten that mission of love. 
On this Sabbath-day, by the waters of that healing pool,} 
ere 738 which ancient tradition as well as recent in- 
the pool of Be- vestigation seems to have correctly identified 
with the large but now ruined reservoir in 
the vicinity of St. Stephen’s gate,’ the Lord performs a 
miracle on one poor sufferer, who had long lingered in 
that House of Mercy,’ unpitied and friendless. That 
miracle was accompanied with a sign of great signifi- 


1 It may be considered somewhat doubtful whether ver. 4 is really an integral 

portion of the sacred text, or a later addition. It is omitted by Tischendorf 
with the Vatican MS., the first hand of the Codex Ephremi, the Codex Beze, 
and a few ancient versions,— the valuable Curetonian Syriac (but see Roberts, 
On Lang. of St. Matt. Gospel, p. 122) being of the number. This is undoubtedly 
authority of some weight; but as prejudice or reluctance to accept the fact speci- 
fied might have something to do with the removal of the verse, we shal] perhaps 
be justified in following the judgment of Lachmann, and, with one first class and 
nearly all the second class uncial MSS., in retaining the verse. It must not be 
disguised, however, that these authorities differ greatly with one another in the 
separate words,—a further argument of some importance. Compare Meyer, 
Komment. p. 141 sq. (ed. 2). The attempts, in which, strangely enough, a note of 
Hammond is to be included, to explain away the miraculous portion of the state- 
ment, are very unsatisfactory. If the verse is a part of the sacred text, then 
undoubtedly the ultimate agency, however outwardly exhibited, whether by 
gaseous exhalations or intermittent currents, was angelical. See Wordsworth 
in loc. and comp. Lange, Leben Jesu, 11. 2. 2, Part 1. p. 50, and some curious com- 
ments and quotations in Sepp, Leben Christi, 1v. 5, Vol. 11. p. 815 sq. 
" 2 This, it must be conceded, is a debated point, as there are arguments of some 
weight in favor of this reservoir being regarded as a portion of the ancient fosse 
which protected the temple and the fort of Antonia. See Robinson, Palestine, 
Vol. i. p. 293 sq. (ed. 2). The traditional site, however, and its identification with 
the pool of Bethesda mentioned in the ancient Jerusalem Itinerary (p. 589), 
seems fairly maintained by Williams, Holy City, 11. 5, Vol. ii. p. 488, though 
doubted by Winer, RWB. Vol.i.p.170. Under any circumstances the suggestion 
of Robinson (apparently favored by Trench, Miracles, p. 247), that Bethesda is 
perhaps to be identified with the Fountain of the Virgin, is pronounced by an 
unbiased traveiler, who has seen that deeply excavated fountain (see vignette in 
Williams, Vol. ii. p. xi.), as plainly incompatible with what we must infer from 
the details of the sacred narrative as to the nature of the locality where the 
miracle was performed. For a good view of the traditional site, see Robertson 
and Beato, Views of Jerusalem, No. 12. 

8 This appears to be the correct meaning: the true etymology not being NM" 
NIN , ‘*the house of effusion or washing’ (Bochart, Reland, al., followed by 
Williams, Holy City, Vol. ii. p. 487), but STO] "3, —an etymology strongly 
confirmed by the Peshito-Syriac, which here uve the Grecized form back 
again into its original elements (beth chesdo). See Wolf, Cure Philolog. (in loc.) 
Vol. ii. p. 835. 


Lecr. III. THE EARLY JUDHAN MINISTRY. 137 


cance. Not only does our Lord restore the helpless 
paralytic,' but commands him to rise up and 
bear his bed, and thus practically evince not 
only his own completed recovery, but the true lordship of 
the Son of Man over Sabbatical restrictions and ceremo- 
nial rest.2, He that a year before had shown that He was 
Lord of the temple, now shows that He is 
Lord also of the Sabbath. But this was what 
Pharisaical hypocrisy could not brook. This act, merciful 
and miraculous as it was, involved a violation of what 
Scribe and Pharisee affected to hold most dear; and it 
could not.and must not be tolerated. The Jews, or — as 
that term nearly always implies in St. John —the adhe- 
rents of the Sanhedrin,®? who had been informed by the 
man who it was that had healed him,‘ and some of whom 


John v. 8. 


Ch. ii. 19. 


1 For an explanation of the various details of the miracle, the student must be 
referred to the standard commentaries, especially those of Chrysostom, Cyril of 
Alexandria, Theophylact, and Euthymius; and, among more modern writers, 
those of Maldonatus, Liicke, Meyer, and Alford. See also the fragmentary 
homily of Cyril of Jerusalem (Works, Ὁ. 336, ed. Bened.), Hall, Contemplations, 
Iv. 11, and Trench, Notes on the Miracles, p. 248. 

2 It would certainly seem, as Lightfoot suggests (Hor. Hebr. in loc. Vol. ii. p. 
622), that our Lord desired by this command to show His power over the Sab- 
bath, and to exhibit openly His condemnation of the ceremonial restrictions 
with which it was then encumbered. For some striking instances of these, see 
especially the Mishna, Tract, ‘‘ Sabbath,” p. 87 sq. (De Sola and Raphall), where 
the case of an act of charity (relieving a mendicant) forms the subject of dis- 
cussion. We may infer what must have been the amount of glosses with which 
the law respecting the Sabbath was now encumbered, when in the above formal 
collection of the precepts of the oral law, committed to writing little more than 
one hundred and fifty years afterwards, we find that “a tailor must not go out 
with his needle near dusk [on the Sabbath eve], lest he forget and carry it out 
with him [during the Sabbath]. Mishna, Tract, ‘‘ Sabbath,” 1. 3, p. 88 (De Sola 
and Raphall). 

8 See above, p. 115, note 8. The only and indeed obvious exception to this is 
when the term Ιουδαῖοι is used with a national reference (John ii. 6, 18, iii. 1, iv. 
9, al.); in all other cases the term in St. John’s Gospel seems to mark the hostile 
and hierarchical party that especially opposed our blessed Lord’s teaching and 
ministry. 

4 There does not seem sufficient reason for supposing that the man made the 
communication from gratitude, or from a desire to commend our Lord to the 
rulers (comp. Chrys., Cyril Alex.); still less was it from any evil motive (comp. 
Lange, p. 769). It probably arose simply from a desire to justify his performance 
of the command (ver. 9), by specifying the authority under which he had acted. 
Comp. Meyer in loc., and Luthardt, Joh. Evang. Part τι. pp. 6, 7. 


12* 


188 THE EARLY σΟΌΖΙΑΝ MINISTRY. Lect. III. 


had perhaps witnessed the miracle, at once begin to ex- 
hibit a vengeful’ hatred, which only deepens 
in its implacability when in that sublime dis- 
course at the close of the chapter on which we are meditat- 
ing, the fifth chapter of St. John, the Lord declares not 
only His unity in working, but His unity 
in dignity and honor with the Eternal 
Father. 
This is the turning point in the Gospel history. Up to 
Distinctive exon. 815 time the preaching of our Lord at Jeru- 
acteristics of this salem and in Judza has met with a certain 
ΣΝ degree of toleration, and in many cases even 
οὗ acceptance :* but after this all becomes changed. Hence- 
forth the city of David is no meet or safe abode for the 
Son of David; the earthly house of His heavenly Father 
is no longer a secure hall of audience for the preaching of 
the Eternal Son. Henceforth the Judean, or, more strictly 
speaking, the Jerusalem ministry narrows itself into two 
efforts, the one made seven, the other nine months after- 


John v. 16. 


Ver. 17. 


* Ver. 28. 


1 This perhaps is the strongest term that we are fairly justified in using, as the 
words kal ἐζήτουν αὐτὸν ἀποκτεῖναι (ver. 16) are omitted by three out of the 
four leading uncial MSS. See Tischendorf in loc. Vol. i. p. 577. 

2 A very careful investigation into the connection and evolution of thought in 
this divine discourse —the main subject of which is the Person, Mission, and 
Offices of the eternal Son of the eternal Father, and the testimony by which 
they are confirmed —will be found in Luthardt, Johann. Evang. Part τι. p. 10 
sq. See also Stier, Words of our Lord, Vol. v. p. 88 sq. (Clark), and Lange, 
Leben Jesu, τι. 5. 1, Part 11. pp. 770—775. The whole is ably expanded and 
enlarged upon by Augustine, in Joannem, Tract. XV11I1.—xx1l1I. Vol. iii. p. 1855 
Βα. 

8 See John ii. 23,iv.1. In estimating the degree of reception that our Lord’s 
teaching met with, we must carefully distinguish between the general mass of 
the people, whether in Judza or Galilee, which commonly “heard him gladly ” 
(Mark xii. 37), and the Pharisaical and hierarchical party, which both disbelieved 
themselves, and, commonly acting from Jerusalem as a centre (see esp. Matt. xv. 
1, Mark iii. 22, vii. 1), readily organized coéperation in other quarters. Compare 
Luke y.17. Their present state of feeling deserves particular notice, as prepar- 
ing us for their future machinations, and as leading us to expect no such pro- 
longed duration of our Lord’s ministry as the supposition that this feast was 
a Passover would force us to assume. The fearful resolve to kill our Lord, 
though perhaps not officially expressed, had nevertheless now been distinctly 
formed, and was being acted upon. See John y. 18, and comp. Lange, Leben 
Jesu, τι. 5.1, Part 11. p. 769 sq. 


Lect. II. THE EARLY JUDMAN MINISTRY. 139 


wards, and both marked by a similar vindictive animosity, 
on the part of the hostile Jewish section, to 
that which now first comes into such melan- 
choly prominence. Abruptly, as it would 
seem, perhaps only a day or two after this eventful Sab- 
bath,? the Lord leaves Jerusalem, to return to His old home 
in Galilee; there, alas, to meet with a yet sadder rejec- 
‘tion, and to withdraw from hands more sav- 
age and murderous than those even of the 
Pharisees of Jerusalem. 

With this return to Galilee, — which is implied in the 
interval between the fifth and sixth chapters ον ριπαπου 
of St. John, and which has been supposed,  oftheearly Judean 
though I cannot think correctly,’ by a recent ity te sts 
sacred chronologer,* as identical with the eter: 
departure or return to Galilee specified by 
all the three Synoptical Evangelists, — he portion of our 
history comes to its conclusion. 


John viii. 59; x 
31, 39. 


Luke iv. 16 sq. 
Luke iv. 28. 


1 The first of these was at our Lord’s visit to Jerusalem, during the Feast of 
Tabernacles, towards the middle of October in the present year, A. τ΄. οἱ 782 
(John vii. 1 sq., comp. Luke ix. 51 sq.); the second at His appearance in Jerusa- 
lem at the Feast of the Dedication, in the December of the same year (John x. 
22 sq.). 

2 When our Lord left Jerusalem is not mentioned, or even implied, but after 
the impious efforts directed against His life we may reasonably conclude that it 
was immediately, —the very day, perhaps, after the present Sabbath, and thus 
with fully sufficient time to reach Galilee and Nazareth before the Sabbath 
which succeeded. Comp. Wieseler, Chron. Synops. p. 222, 260 sq. 

8 See above, p. 127, note 2, and the beginning of the next Lecture, where this 
question is noticed more at length. 

4 See Wieseler, Chron. Synops. p. 161 sq., compared with p. 228. This oppor- 
tunity may properly be taken of especially recommending to the attention of 
every thoughtful student, who may be acquainted with the language in which it 
is written, this able treatise on the succession of the events in the Gospel-history. 
The more recent Synopsis Evangelica of Tischendorf is based nearly entirely 
upon the researches and deductions of this keen-sighted writer, and the present 
work owes a very large part of what may be thought plausible or probable in its 
chronological arrangement to the same intelligent guide. It is just to state that 
nothing has been accepted without independent and very deliberate investiga- 
tion, and that many modifications, and, as it would seem, rectifications have 
been introduced. The clew, however, even where it has been judged to lead off 
in a different direction, has in most cases, I again most gratefully acknowledge, 
either been indicated or supplied by this excellent work. A translation of it 
would be a very welcome aid to the general reader. 


140 THE EARLY JUDAAN MINISTRY. Lect. IIL 


Thus, then, what has been roughly termed the Judean 
ministry —a ministry extending continuously from the 
March to the December of the preceding year (a. v. c. 781), 
and resumed only to be abruptly broken off in the March 
of the present year (A. τ. o, 782) — may be considered as 
now practically ended.’ This is immediately succeeded 
by the ministry in Galilee, and in the neighboring districts 
to the north and east,—a ministry, be it again observed, 
to which the principal portion of the Synoptical- Gospels, 
especially of the first and second, is nearly exclusively 
confined. If we only steadily bear in mind that the Syn- 
optical Gospels mainly relate to us the events of the min- 
istry in Galilee, the rough starting-point of which is the 
Baptist’s captivity,? we shall, I venture to feel confident, 
find but little difficulty in appreciating the true relations 
to one another of the four Gospels, and in mastering the 
general outline of the succeeding portions of the Evan- 
gelical narrative. 

And now let me close this lecture with the earnest 


1 The short period of two months which intervenes between the Feast of 
Tabernacles and the Feast of the Dedication was probably spent in Judza (see 
Lecture v1.), and thus might properly be considered a portion of the Judzan 
ministry. The general reader, however, will find it more convenient to regard 
the main Judzan ministry as now past, the Galilean ministry as about to follow, 
and to be succeeded by a period of broken and interrupted ministrations, of 
removals and journeys, which terminate with the last Passover. See above, 
Lect. 11. p. 51. 

2 It seems necessary to make this limitation, as the Gospel of St. Luke from 
the close of the ninth to the middle of the nineteenth chapter — a very consid- 
erable portion of that Gospel —is occupied with notices of that portion of our 
Lord’s ministry which intervened between the Feast of Tabernacles (October, 
A.U.C, 782) and the triumphal entry into Jerusalem just preceding the last Pass- 
over (April, A. U. σ. 788). 

3 See above, p. 127, note 2. The ancient tradition on which this very reason- 
able opinion mainly rests is cited below, p. 146, note 1. The reason why the 
Synoptical Evangelists leave unnoticed the early ministry in Judea cannot, per- 
haps, be readily assigned. As, however, it seems certain that nearly every system 
of chronology must, in a greater or less degree, concede the fact, we may, with 
all humility and reverence, perhaps hazard the opinion that these Evangelists 
were specially directed and guided mainly to confine their narrative to the 
period of the ministry in Galilee,—a period so marked, not only by the found- 
ing of the Church, but by the exhibition of many and mighty miracles, and the 
communication of varied and manifold forms of heavenly teaching. Compare 
Wieseler, Chron. Synops. p. 261. 


Lect. IIL. THE EARLY JUDHAN MINISTRY. 141 


prayer that these hasty and fleeting sketches* may have in 
some degree served to bring this portion of ie eM. 
the history of our Redeemer before our minds = marks andechorta- 
with increased measures of freshness and “ 

coherence. Hard it has been, very hard, to adjust the 
many questions of contested history; harder still to know 
where to enlarge or where to be brief only in unfolding the 
connection of events which are still regarded by the wise 
and meditative as in uncertain dependence, or in more 
than precarious sequence. Yet I trust all has not been in 
vain; I trust that in you, my younger brethren, more espe- 
cially,? I have awakened some desire to search the Scrip- 
tures, and to muse on the events of your Redeemer’s life 
with a fresher and more vital interest. Remember, I be- 
seech you, that though chronologies may seem perplexing 
and-«events intermingled, yet still that every earnest effort 
to bring before your hearts the living picture of your 
Redeemer’s life will be blessed by His Spirit.2 Be not 
discouraged by the difficulty of the task; though here, 


1 This is the term which is most appropriate to these Lectures, and which 
would have appeared on the very title-page if it had not been deemed unsuitable 
to place a term so purely belonging to mere human things in connection with 
the most holy name of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. 

2 Some experience as a public examiner in the New Testament, both in this 
University and elsewhere, has served to teach me that few points connected 
with the exposition of the four Gospels are less known or less attended to, by 
the young, than the study of the probable order of events, and the relations 
and degrees of interdependence existing between the records of the four inspired 
writers. 

3 It is well and truly observed by Bishop Taylor, in his noble introduction to 
his greatest work, The Life of Christ, that every true and sincere effort to set 
before our souls the life of our Master both ought to and, with God’s blessing, 
must needs end in imitation. ‘He that considers,” says the Chrysostom of our 
Church, in reference to one particular aspect of our Lord’s life, “with what 
effusions of love Jesus prayed, — what fervors and assiduity, what innocency of 
wish, what modesty of posture, what subordination to His Father, and con- 
formity to the Divine pleasure, were in all His devotions, —is taught and excited 
to holy and religious prayer. The rare sweetness of His deportment in all 
temptations and violences of His passion, His charity to His enemies, His sharp 
reprehension of the Scribes and Pharisees, His ingenuity toward all men, are 
living and effectual sermons to teach us patience and humility and zeal, and 
candid simplicity and justice in all our actions.” —Life of Christ, Prelim. Exhort. 
§ 15, Vol. i. p. 25 (Lond. 18386). - 


149 THE EARLY JUDMAN MINISTRY. Lecr. IIL. 


perchance, we may wander; there miss the right clew; 
yet, if with a true and living faith we seek to bring home 
to our hearts the great features of the Evangelical history, 
—to journey with our Master over the lonely mountains 
of Galilee; to sit with Him beside the busy waters of the 
lake of Gennesareth; to follow His footsteps into remote 
and half-pagan lands,’ or to hang on His lips in the courts 
of His Father’s house, — we shall not seek in vain. The 
history of the Gospels will be more and more to us a liy- 
ing history; one Divine Image ever waxing clearer and 
brighter, — shedding its light on lonely hours, coming up 
before us in solitary walks, ever fresher, ever dearer, — 
until at length all things will seem so close, so near, so true, 
that our faith in Jesus and Him crucified will be such 
as no sophistry can weaken, no doubtfulness becloud.? 

For that vivid interest in the history of Jesus let us all 
pray to our heavenly Father; and in the name of Him on 
whom we have been meditating, let us con- 
clude with the prayer of His chosen ones, 
“Lord, increase our faith.” 


Luke xvii. 5. 


1 This striking and commonly too much overlooked portion of our Lord’s 
ministry will be found noticed especially in Lect. v. 

2 For an expansion of these passing comments on the unspeakable blessedness 
of this form of meditative union with our adorable Saviour, the student may 
profitably be referred to one of the most eloquent devotional treatises ever 
written in our language,—the Christ Mystical of Bp. Hall( Works, Vol. vii. p. 
225. Talboys, 1837). 


LECTURE IV. 


THE MINISTRY IN EASTERN GALILEE. 


NOW AFTER THAT JOHN WAS PUT IN PRISON, JESUS CAME INTO GALILEE, 
PREACHING THE GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM OF 60}. --- St. Mark i. 14. 


In resuming my course of Lectures upon those events 
in the life of our Lord and Master which are 
recorded to us in the Gospels, it will be per- ἀἐῥαιηρίίοη ofthe 
haps well for me, both in consideration of the 
time that has elapsed since my last Lecture,' and with the 
remembrance that some may now be present who did not 
hear the former portion of this course,’ so far to recapitu- 
late as to remind you briefly of our present position in the 
Gospel-history, and of the events which appear to have just 
preceded our present starting-point. 

It may perhaps be remembered that our last meditations 
were devoted to what we agreed to term our 
Lord’s early Judean ministry,;—a ministry οὐ eos 
which commenced with the cleansing of the | ¢ Judean minis 
Temple at our Lord’s first Passover (March 
A. τ. σ. 781),* and extended continuously to the December 


1 The first three Lectures of this course were delivered in the month of April, 
the present and the two following not till the succeeding October. The brief 
recapitulation in the text could thus hardly be dispensed with, when so long an 
interval had elapsed between the two portions of the course. In the form in 
which the Lectures now appear it is not so necessary; as, however, it has seemed 
probable that, in a subject like the present, a brief recapitulation might be of 
benefit even to the general reader, the Lecture has been left in the same state in 
which it was delivered. 

2 This refers to the new-comers in the October term. See the remarks in 
Lecture I. p. 20. 

3 See Lecture 11. p. 51, and compare Ὁ. 140, note 1. 

4 If the tables constructed by Wieseler (Chron. Synops. p. 482 sq.; reprinted 
in Tischendorf, Synops. Evang. p. L1.) on the basis of astronominal data sup- 


144 THE MINISTRY IN EASTERN GALILEE. Lect. IV. 


of that year when our Lord returned to Galilee through 
Samaria, and performed the second and, as it would seem, 
isolated miracle of healing the son of the nobleman of 
Capernaum.' It may be further remembered that after a 
brief stay in Galilee, — of which we have no further record 
than the passing comment of St. Luke, that “He taught 


cae in their synagogues, being glorified of all,” ? 
Ch. iv. 17. and the similarly brief notices of St. Matthew 
Ch. i. 15. 


and St. Mark, that the burden of that teach- 
* ing was repentance, —our Lord went up to Jerusalem, at the 
time of a festival, which it was judged highly probable was 
that of Purim, with the apparent intention of staying over 


plied by Wurm (Astron. Beitrage) are to be relied on as exact, the first day of 
this Passover, 7. 6. according to popular usage, the fourteenth of Nisan took 
place on the twenty-ninth of March. One day earlier (March 28) is the date 
specified by Browne (Ordo Secl. § 64), but the Tables from which it appears to 
have been derived (§ 448) are admitted to involve sufficient error to account for 
the difference. See the examples on p. 497. 

1 See above, Lect. 111. p 131. 

® This text appears to illustrate, if not confirm, the opinion previously advanced 
(see above, p. 127, note 2), that the return of our Lord specified by the three 
Synoptical Evangelists (Matt. iv. 12, Mark i. 14, Luke iv. 14) does not coincide 
with the interval between the fifth and sixth chapters of St. John, but with the 
return specified by that Evangelist in the fourth chapter. The words of St. 
Luke just seem to give that passing notice of the two-month residence in Galilee, 
which preceded the Feast of Purim, that we might naturally expect. The chief 
feature which probably marked that period, preaching and teaching in the 
synagogues, is briefly specified, while in the words δοξαζόμενος ὑπὸ πάντων it is 
just possible that there may be an oblique allusion to the miracle which we 
know from St. John (ch. iv. 44) was performed during that interval. The force 
of the main objection, that the Synoptical narrative does not thus, as it would 
seem to profess to do, commence immediately after that return of our Lord to: 
Galilee, but really two months later, is thus so far weakened, that when we 
further observe, —(qa) that of two returns to Galilee, St. John pauses carefully 
to specify one, and leaves the other almost unnoticed (comp. ch. vi. 1), and 
again, (6) that in ch. v. 85 our Lord seems to speak of John’s ministry as some- 
thing now quite belonging to the past, it appears difficult to resist the convic- 
tion that the distinctly-mentioned ἀναχώρησις into Galilee of the Synoptical 
writers, immediately after John’s captivity, is identical with the carefully speci- 
fied journey recorded in the fourth chapter of St. John. See Tischendorf, 
Synopsis Evangelica, p. xxv., and for the arguments (not very strong) in favor 
of the identity of the above return with that implied in John vi. 1, Wieseler, 
Chron. Synops. p. 161 sq. The attempt of Lange (Leben Jesu, Part 11.) and 
others to interpolate a considerable portion of the events of the present earlier 
Galilean ministry between the return through Samaria and the Feast of Purim 


has been well considered, and been found to involve chronological difficulties 
wholly insurmountable. 


Lect.IV. THE MINISTRY IN EASTERN GALILEE. 145 


the Passover,! but that, owing to the malignity of the more 
hostile section of the Jews, He appears to have left the 
city almost immediately, and again to have returned to 
Galilee. 

Here our present section begins, and with it what may 
be termed the Lord’s Galilzean or extra-Judzan ministry, — 
a ministry which in itself lasted about six months, but 
which, combined with the journeys and interrupted minis- 
tries which succeeded, occupied as nearly as possible a 
single year,? — the “acceptable year” of that 
ancient prophecy which our Lord Himself 
proclaimed in the synagogue at Nazareth as 
now receiving its fulfilment,—the year to which a most 


Isai. lxi. 2. 
Luke iv. 21. 


1 See above, p. 135, note 3. 

2 The ministry of our Lord would thus seem to have lasted about two years 
and three months, ὁ. 6. from His baptism at the close of 27 A. Ὁ. (780 A. U.C.) or 
beginning of 28 A.D. to the last Passover in 30 A.D. The opinions on this sub- 
ject have been apparently as much divided in ancient as in modern times. 
Several early writers, among whom may be specified Clement of Alexandria 
(Strom. τ. 21, § 145), Origen (de Princip. Iv. 5, in Levit. Hom. 1x., in Luc. Hom. 
XxXxXII., but see below), Archelaus of Mesopotamia (Routh, Relig. Sacr. Vol. 
iy. p. 218), and, according to apparently fair inferences, Julius Africanus (Gres- 
well, Dissert. x11. Vol. i. p. 46), suppose our Lord’s ministry to have lasted 
little more than one year. Others again, of equal or even greater antiquity, such 
as Melito of Sardis (Routh, Relig. Sacr. Vol. i. p. 115), Ireneus (Her. 11.39, but 
see below), and, according to correct inferences, Tertullian (see Kaye, Eccl. Hist. 
ch. 11. p. 159, and compare Browne, Ordo Secl. § 86. 3), and, later in life, Origen 
(Cels. 11. 12, οὐδὲ τρία ἔτη), have fixed the duration as three years, or, as Irenzus 
(/. 6.) implies, even more. A calm consideration of these and other passages 
from early writers will show that they cannot be strongly pressed on either side. 
Several of them involve references to prophecy, which in some cases evidently 
swayed the opinion of the writer (comp. Euseb. Dem. Evang. vir. 400 B); some 
(as the passage of Irenzus) are called out by the counter-opinion of heretics, 
while others again are mere obiter dicta, that cannot fairly be urged as giving 
areally deliberate opinion. After a review of the whole evidence, the most 
reasonable opinion, and one which tends in a great degree to harmonize these 
citations, is this,—that the general feeling of antiquity was that our Lord’s 
entire ministry lasted for a period, speaking roughly, of about three years, but 
that the more active part, 7. 6. that with which the synoptical narrative practically 
commences, lasted one. If this be correct, the statement at the beginning of 
the note has to a certain extent the united support of all antiquity, and suf- 
ficiently nearly accords with the three years of the significant parable (Luke 
xiii. 6 sq.), which has, perhaps rightly, been pressed into this controversy. See 
Wieseler, Chron. Synops. p. 202; and for further general information, Greswell, 
Dissert. x111. Vol. i. 488 sq., Browne, Ordo Secl. § 85 sq., and the acute comments 
of Anger, de Temp. in Act. Apost. p. 23 sq. 


13 


146 THE MINISTRY IN EASTERN GALILEE. Lect. IV. 


trustworthy tradition preserved by Eusebius confines the 
narrative of the three Synoptical Gospels.’ 
Before we enter upon the details of the inspired history, 
let me pause to make two preliminary obser- 
pine preliminary vations, the first in reference to the space of 
time which it is convenient to consider in the 
present Lecture; the second in reference to the variations 
of order in the events as related in this portion of the 
Synoptical Gospels. 
With regard to the first point, we may observe that we 
ον, SoTe mOW before us the events of a year and 
of timeembracedin & few days,’ distributed, however, very une- 
mepren"" sually in the Gospel-narrative. Of the events 
of the first portion, which, as will be seen, are included in 
a period of little more than three weeks, we have an ample 
and almost continuous history; of the events of the whole 
remaining period (excluding the final week of our Lord’s 
ministry), more isolated and detached notices, and a some- 
what altered mode of narration. This being the case, I 
venture to think that we shall both distribute our incidents 
more equably, and, what is more important, keep distinct 


1 The valuable tradition above alluded to is as follows: ‘‘ When the three first 
written Gospels had now been delivered into the hands of all, and of John too 
as well, they say that he approved of them and bore witness to their truth, and 
that thus all that the history lacked was an account of the things done by Christ 
at first and at the beginning of His preaching. And the account is certainly 
true. For it is easily seen that the other three Evangelists have only written an 
account of what was done by our Saviour in the space of one year after the 
imprisonment of John the Baptist, and that they have intimated the same at the 
beginning of their history.’ — Eusebius, Hist. Zecl. 11. 24. Compare Wieseler, 
Chron. Synops. p. 168. 

2 The first event is the rejection of our Lord on His appearance in the syna- 
gogue at Nazareth (Luke iy. 16). This we know was on a Sabbath-day, the exact 
date of which—if Wieseler’s Tables (see above, p. 148, note 4) are fully to be 
relied on, and if the Feast of Purim fell, as it appears to have done, on the Sab- 
bath when our Lord healed the man at the pool of Bethesda (see Lect. 111. p. 134) 
— would be March 26. The Passover of the succeeding year, we learn from the 
same authority, commenced on April 6. We have then exactly a year and eleven 
days. The calculation by which the week-day answering to any given date is 
arrived at will be greatly facilitated by Tables 1v. and v. in Browne’s Ordo Secl. 
p. 502 sq. In the present case it will be found by independent computation that, 
as above asserted, March 26 coincided with a Saturday. 


ΤῈΟΤ. 17. THE MINISTRY IN EASTERN GALILEE. 147 


from one another portions of the Gospels which appear 
to be dissimilar in their general characteristics, if on the 
present occasion we confine ourselves solely to the events 
of the three weeks above alluded to, and reserve for the 
remaining Lectures the events of the longer portion. The 
dividing epoch, let it be observed, is that of the feeding 
of the five thousand,— an epoch by no means arbitrarily 
chosen, but, as a brief chronological notice 
in St. John’s Gospel warrants our asserting, 
an epoch closely coincident with that Passover of the 
present year,’ which the savage and impious designs of 
the Jewish party at Jerusalem appear to have prevented 
our Lord from celebrating in the Holy City2 Estimating, 
then, roughly by festivals, our present period extends from 
the Feast of Purim (March 19, a. τ. c. 782) to the Pass- 
over-eve (April 14), at which point our present medita- 
tions will conveniently come to their close. 

With regard to the second point, — the order of the 
events in these three weeks, let me briefly κενόν οθοϑδα 
observe that the period we are now engaged order in the three 
in presents the utmost difficulty to the har- ἐν ean 
monist,* arising from this simple fact, that though all the 


John vi. 4. 


1 This statement will be substantiated by the succeeding comments upon the 
variations of order in the first three Evangelists (p. 148), and by the introductory 
remarks at the commencement of Lectureiv. The main points to be observed 
are, that up to the feeding of the five thousand the order of events in St. Mat- 
thew appears intentionally modified, after that period, mainly regular and sys- 
tematic; and that up to the same point St. Luke is full and explicit, while to the 
six months between that period and the journey to Jerusalem at the Feast of 
Tabernacles he only devotes about thirty verses. 

2 This useful conciliatory date is commented upon by Wieseler, Chron. Synops. 
p- 278. To set aside the words τὸ πάσχα as a gloss (Mann, True Year of our 
Lord’s Birth, Ὁ. 161; comp. Browne, Ordo Secl. § 89) is arbitrary, and not justi- 
fied by any external evidence. 

3 See above, p. 188, note 8. 

4 These discrepancies perhaps can never be wholly cleared up, especially in 
those cases where there are partial notes of place which augment the already 
existing difficulties in regard of time. To take an example: in the case of the 
healing of the leper recorded in the three Synoptical Gospels, independent of 
all the difficulties arising from the difference in time, the scene of the miracle as 
defined by St. Matthéw, καταβάντι δὲ αὐτῷ ἀπὸ τοῦ ὄρους (ch. viii. 1), does not 
seem to accord with the ἐν μιᾷ τῶν πόλεων of St. Luke (ch. y. 12). We can, of 


148 THE MINISTRY IN EASTERN GALILEE. Lect. IV. 


first three Evangelists record more or less the same facts, 
St. Matthew relates them in an order so signally and pal- 
pably different from that adopted by St. Mark and St. 
Luke, that all efforts to combine the two must be pro- 
nounced simply hopeless! Either for those three weeks 
we must accept the order of St. Matthew and adapt that 
of St. Mark and St. Luke to it, or we must adopt the con- 
verse course. The third alternative, that of constructing 
a harmony of our own out of all three,— an alternative 
that has only too often been adopted by the ingenious and 
the speculative,—is in a high degree precarious, and, as 
far as I am able to judge, has not led to any other than 
debatable and unsatisfactory results. 

Without here entering into details, which delivered 
orally would prove both wearisome and perplexing,? I will 


course, imagine several ways in which the two accounts could be harmonized, 
but we must be satisfied with merely putting them forward as tentative and 
conjectural. At first sight it might be thought judicious, in a case like the pres- 
ent, to consider the special notice of St. Matthew as contrasted with the more 
general notices of St. Mark and St. Luke as definitely fixing both the time and 
place (comp. Alford on Matt. viii. 2), but a remembrance of the principle of 
grouping, which appears almost evidently to have been followed in this portion 
of the record of the first Evangelist (comp. Lecture 1. p. 85), warns us at once 
that all such eclectic modes of harmonizing can never be relied on, and that 
even with St. Matthew’s accessory definitions the order of the events he relates 
must to the last remain a matter of uncertainty. 

1 Let the student either make for himself, with the proper notes of time and 
place, three lists of the events in their order, as related by the first three Evan- 
gelists, or refer to those drawn up by others, as, for instance, by Wieseler (Chron. 
Synops. pp. 280, 297), Browne (Ordo Seecl. § 586), or any of the better harmoniz- 
ers of this portion of the inspired narrative, and he will feel the truth of this 
remark. For example, if1....26 represent in order the events of this period 
as collected from St. Mark and St. Luke, the order in St. Matthew will be found 
as follows: 1, 2, 3, 5, 12, 6, 18, 4, 19, 20, 7, 8, 21, 28, 15, 9, 10, 18, 17, 22, 25, 26. Such 
a result speaks for itself. 

2 To conduct such an inquiry properly, we must endeavor (a) to form a correct 
idea of the general object of the Gospel in question, and to observe how far this 
admits of its being made the basis of a regular and continuous Gospel-history; 
(Ὁ) to collect all the passages which in any degree indicate the principles, anec- 
dotal or historical, on which the Evangelist appears to have drawn up his narra- 
tive; (c) to note carefully the nature and amount of the irregularities which can 
be detected, either from a comparison of different portions of the same Gospel 
with one another, or with parallel accounts in the other Gospels; (d) to classify 
the notes of time and place, and to observe where they are precise and definitive, 
and where merely vague and indefinite; lastly, (6) to investigate the nature of 


Lect. IV. THE MINISTRY IN EASTERN GALILEE. 149 


simply say, that after long and careful consideration, and 
with a full sense of the great responsibility 

of making distinct assertions on such diffi- yj ree 
cult questions before an audience like the ϊοιροεῖ in these 
present, I have come to the determination 

of following the order of events as given by St. Mark 
and St. Luke, rather than that given by St. Matthew, 
and that for these general but weighty reasons. Jrst, 
that in cases of clear discrepancy in the order 
of narration between two of the sacred 
writers, we seem bound to follow the one who himself 
tells us if words mean anything, that it has been his care 
to draw up his history with general reference to the order 
of events. Secondly, that the order of St. 
Luke in the first part of our present por- 
tion is strikingly confirmed by the order of events in St. 
Mark, from which it only differs in two or three instances, 


First reason. 


Second reason. 


the formulz which link together the successive paragraphs, and to distinguish 
between those which mark immediate connection and those which indicate 
mere general sequence. The first of these heads is partially illustrated in Lect. 
I p. 34; the rest are best left to independent observation. If assistance be 
needed in reference to (δ), see Davidson, Zntrod. to N. T. Vol. i. p. 56, or Cred- 
ner, Hinleitung, § 37, p. 63 sq.; in ref. to (6), Greswell, Dissert. 11. Vol. i. p. 195 
sq.; in ref. to (d), the table in Wieseler, Chron. Synops. p. 297 sq.; and in ref. to 
fe), Ebrard, Kritik der Ev. Gesch. § 23, pp. 88—94. 

1 The exact meaning of some of the expressions in this introduction, especially 
Gm ἀρχῆς, παρηκολουϑηκότι, ἄνωϑεν, and most of all καϑεξῆς, has been abun- 
dantly discussed. The most correct view-seems to be as follows: that ἀρχὴ 
refers to the beginning of the πραγμάτων previously alluded to, scil. τῶν Savud- 
των καὶ τῶν πραγμάτων, Euthymius in loc.; that παρηκολουδϑηκότι, in accord- 
ance both with its use and derivation, marks research as evinced in tracing 
along, and, as it were, mentally accompanying the events in question; that 
ἄνωδϑεν refers to a commencement from the very beginning, — from the birth of 
the Baptist; and, lastly, that cadets, like ἐφεξῆς, can only imply an adherence 
to the natural order of the events related, — ἑξῆς ws ἕκαστα ἐγένετο, Thucyd. 
11.1, v. 26. See Meyer, in loc.,and compare Greswell, Dissert.1. Vol.i. p. 9. 
In a word, in this preface we are assured by the inspired writer that we are to 
expect in what follows fidelity, accuracy, research, and order ; and we find them. 
Compare Lange, Leben Jesu, 1.6.8. Introd. p. 220. 

2 These are, the calling of the four Apostles (Luke v. 1—11, compared with 
Mark i. 16—20), the arrival of the mother and brethren of our Lord (Luke viii. 
19—21, compared with Mark iii. 31—35), and apparently the calumnies of the 
Pharisees (Mark iii. 20 sq., compared with Luke xi. 17 sq.), and the parabie of 
the Grain of Mustard (Luke xiii. 18 sq., compared with Mark iv. 30 sq.), though 


13* 


150 THE MINISTRY IN EASTERN GALILEE. Lect. IV. 


which have been satisfactorily accounted for and adjusted. 
Thirdly, that the chronology of St. Luke in 
this portion of the Gospel history can be 
shown to harmonize with that supplied indirectly by St. 
John in a very striking manner! ourthly, that the 
seeming want of order in St. Matthew 
can be very readily accounted for by observ- 
ing that,in this portion of his Gospel, the Evangelist 
appears to have wittingly adopted a peculiar arrangement, 
viz., ἃ separation into different groups of the discourses of 
our Lord and the historical events with which they stood 
in connection, and that such an arrangement almost neces- 
sarily precludes strict chronological adjustments. However 
perplexing we may deem such a phenomenon in a Gospel 
that in other parts appears mainly to follow a regular and 
chronological order, — however we may be tempted to 
speculate on the causes which led to it,’ this much appears 


Third reason. 


Fourth reason. 


both these might well have been repeated on two different occasions. For a 
good adjustment of the two main differences, see Wieseler, Chron. Synops. p. 
284 sq., and in respect of the first of them, compare also Augustine, de Consens. 
£v. τι. 17, and Spanheim, Dub. Evang. LxIit. 2, p. 341 sq. 

1 For a careful investigation into the confirmatory elucidations of the order of 
this portion of St. Luke’s Gospel, as supplied by that of St. John, see Wieseler, 
Chron. Synops. 111. 2 A, p. 271 sq. 

2 Though it is ever both unwise and unbecoming to speculate too freely about 
the origin and composition of an inspired document, the opinion may perhaps 
be hazarded that this peculiarity in St. Matthew’s Gospel may be due to the 
incorporation by the Evangelist of an earlier (Hebrew) narrative in this later and 
more complete (Greek) Gospel. If such a conjecture be received, we can not 
only explain the present peculiarity, but can also account for, on the one hand, 
the positive statements of antiquity that the first Evangelist composed his Gospel 
originally in Hebrew (Papias ap. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 111. 89, Ireneus, Her. 111. 1. 
al.), and, on the other, the universal reception of the Greek Gospel as the verita- 
ble and undoubted work of the Evangelist. See Wieseler, Synops. p. 304. The 
portion to which we are alluding may thus have been a part of the λόγια which 
Papias says were drawn up by St. Matthew, and the meaning of the doubtful 
word Adyia may be so far correctly modified as to point to a predominance in 
that treatise of the τὰ ὑπὸ Χριστοῦ λεχϑέντα over the ἢ πραχϑέντα which 
appears also included in the term. See above, Lect. 1. p. 28, note 8. That St. 
Matthew originally wrote in Hebrew can scarcely be doubted, if we are to place 
any reliance on external testimony, and that the present Greek Gospel came 
from his hand, and not from that of an editor or compiler, seems almost equally 
clear, from internal and external testimony combined; how then can we adjust 
the two apparent facts without assuming an earlier and a later treatise? And if 


Lect. IV. THE MINISTRY IN EASTERN GALILEE. 1 


certain, that such an arrangement does exist and can be 
easily verified, if we examine the peculiar structure of the 
portion of the Gospel which begins with the fifth and 
closes with the thirteenth chapter. We see, for example, 
that on the one hand we have three large portions contain- 
ing discourses, viz. the Sermon on the Mount, the appar- 
ently grouped and collected instructions which our Lord 
addressed to the Twelve previous to their mission, and the 
collection of the parables in the thirteenth chapter;* and, 
on the other hand, that we have a large collection of mira- 
cles related in the eighth and ninth chapters, which com- 
prise, with scarcely any exception, the scattered events of 
the period preceding the sending out of the Twelve; 
after which the narrative proceeds in strict chronological 
order. When we add to this the concluding observation, 
that, singularly enough, we find in several instances careful 
notices of place exactly where the order of time seems 
most disarranged,? it seems almost impossible to resist the 
conviction that the first Evangelist was by no means unac- 
quainted with the correct order of events, but that he 
designedly departed from it, and directed his first attention 
to his Master’s preaching during this momentous period, 
and then grouped together the nearly contemporary events 
and miracles,’ with such notices of place as should guard 
against any possibility of misconception. 


so, is it strange that the first should have been incorporated in the second, and 
thus so effectually superseded as to have soon passed out of notice? The preten- 
sions of the Curetonian Syriac (as put forward by its laborious editor) to repre- 
sent more nearly the words of St. Matthew than any other extant document 
would in some degree affect the present question, if it had not apparently been 
demonstrated that such pretensions are untenable. See, thus far, the recent 
investigation of Roberts, Original Lang. of St. Matthew’s Gospel, ch. IV. 3, p. 
122 sq., and compare Donaldson, New Crat. § 15, p. 23, note (ed. 3). 

1 For a brief notice of these, see Lect. 1. p. 86, note 1, and for a specification of 
the miracles in the eighth and ninth chapters, ib., note 2. 

2 Compare for example ch. viii. 5, εἰσελϑόντι δὲ αὐτῷ eis Καπερναούμ ; ver. 
14, ἐλϑὼν εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν Πετροῦ ; ver. 18, εἰς τὸ πέραν ; ver. 28, ἐλϑόντι εἰς τὸ 
πέραν εἰς τὴν χώραν τῶν Τεργεσηνῶν ; ch. ἰχ. 1, ἦλϑεν εἰς τὴν ἰδίαν πόλιν : 
ch. xii. 9, ἦλϑεν εἰς τὴν συναγωγὴν αὐτῶν ; xiii. 1, ἐξελϑὼν ἀπὸ τῆς οἰκίας 
ἐκαδϑῆτο παρὰ τὴν δϑάλασσαν. See also Wieseler, Chron. Synops. p. 807. 

8 The want of regularity in St. Matthew’s Gospel, arising from this mede of 


152 THE MINISTRY IN EASTERN GALILEE. Lect. IV. 


Relying on these sound and apparently convincing rea- 
sons for following the order of St. Mark and St. Luke rather 
than that of St. Matthew, let us now again take up the 
thread of the inspired narrative. . 

After a hasty departure from Jerusalem our Lord returns 

to his old home at Nazareth, where some, if 
J Appearance _ not all of the kindred of the Lord appear to 
agoque at Nasa~ have been still residing,’ and on the Sabbath- 

Siento. ake day which immediately succeeded His return 

entered into the synagogue, as had now be- 
come His custom, to read and to teach. What a vivid 
picture has the inspired Evangelist St. Luke been moved 
to present to us of that memorable morning. Prayer and 
the reading of the law were now over? and the reading of 
the prophets was to begin, and the reading of the season 
was from the old Evangelist Isaiah. The Re- 
deemer stands up to read, and, with the sanc- 
tion of the now not improbably expectant ruler of that 


Ver. 16. 


construction, is acknowledged by nearly all impartial inquirers of recent times. 
See Greswell, Dissert. 111. p. 194—288; Browne, Ordo Secl. § 590, whose theory of 
a Redactor, however, is neither satisfactory nor plausible. Attention was 
formerly called to it by Lightfoot (Harmony, Vol. i. p. 508, Roterod. 1686), and 
also by Whiston (Harmony of Gospels, p. 100 sq., Lond. 1702), but accounted for 
by the latter in a way (misarrangement by a translator of fragmentary scraps) 
which Browne (p. 644, note) properly designates as palpably absurd. He was 
answered by Jones, Vindic. of St. Matt. Lond. 1719. 

1 It has been supposed that the Virgin and her family had retired to Cana (see 
above, p. 107, note 1), but apparently not on suflicient grounds. That the 
ἀδελφαὶ of the Lord were now living at Nazareth seems certain from Matt. xiii. 
56, Mark vi. 8, and that the Virgin and the brethren were there also is not 
improbable. The way, however, in which the residence of the ἀδελφαὶ is speci- 
fied seems rather to imply the contrary, and may lead us to conjecture that the 
Virgin and her other kindred were now at Capernaum, a place which they 
might have selected for their abode a year before (John ii. 12): consider Matt. 
xii. 46 sq., Mark iii. 81 sq., Luke viii. 19 sq., and John vii. 3. The commonly 
assumed identity of this visit to Nazareth with that mentioned Matt. xiii. 54 sq., 
Mark vi. 1 sq., is convincingly disproved by Wieseler, Chron. Synops. p. 284. 

2 The service of the synagogue commenced with praise and prayer; then a 
portion of the law was read aloud, and after this a portion from the prophets. 
See Jost, Gesch. des Judenth. 11. 1. 6, Vol. i. p. 178 sq., the special treatise of 
Vitringa (de Synag.), the more modern work of Zunz (Gottesdienst. Vortrage 
der Juden. p. 829, sq.), and for useful references illustrative of the whole passage, 
compare Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr. Vol. ii. p. 608 sq. (Roterod. 1686). 


Lect. IV. THE MINISTRY IN EASTERN GALILEE. 153 


house of prayer, the roll is delivered to Him by the at- 
tendant. He unfolds it, and reads that striking passage 
which His own divine wisdom and foreknowledge had 
moved Him to select,?— that passage which 
both in its specifications of time and circum- 
stances was now being so exactly fulfilled. 
Such words might well have aroused the attention of 
those that heard it, nor can we wonder that plats. -- 
our Lord’s explanations*® were looked for with «μεὶ. 
interest, and at first received with a kind of Ver. 20. 
amazed approval. But what a fearful sequel! he 
When grave yet gracious words of warning * were directed 
against those feelings of distrust and unbelief into which 


Ver. 19; see 
above, p. 145. 


1 It would appear that our Lord by rising indicated that, as a member of the 
synagogue of Nazareth, He desired on the present occasion to undertake the 
office of Maphtir, or reader of the lesson from the prophets. Comp. Vitringa, 
de Synag. 111. 1. 7, Part 11. p.696 sq. Though not called upon by the ruler of the 
synagogue (comp. Mishna, Tract ‘‘ Megillah,” Iv. 4), assent is at once given, as 
both the ruler and the congregation appear to have heard of the comparatively 
recent miracle at Capernaum (Luke iv. 28; compare Wieseler, Chron. Synops. 
p. 271), and, as the context shows (ver. 20), were full of expectation. See Light- 
foot, in loc. Vol. ii. p. 508. 

2 It seems probable that the reading of the season was from Isaiah (Lightfoot), 
and that our Lord received accordingly that portion of Scripture from the 
attendant keeper of the sacred books (comp. Vitringa, Synagog. τι. 2. 2, p. 899), 
but that, with the privilege which the oral law conceded in the case of the lesson 
from the prophets (Mishna, ‘‘ Megillah,” 1v. 4), He either passed over from the 
section of the day to the beginning of the sixty-first chapter, or else, as ‘* Lord of 
the Sabbath,” specially selected that portion. See Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr. Vol. ii. 
p. 509, and comp. Meyer in loc. The supposition that on our Lord’s opening the 
roll this passage providentially met His eye (comp. De Wette), is not improbable, 
but apparently less in accordance with the ἀναπτύξας, which, as Lightfoot 
remarks, seems somewhat more than the mere “ explicuit or aperuit librum” 
(Z. c. p. 510). 

3 After having read such a portion of the passage as by custom was deemed 
sufficient (‘‘si fuerit Sabbato interpres, legunt in Propheta versiculos tres aut 
quinque aut septem, et non sunt soliciti de versiculis viginti uno,” Massecheth 
Soph. cap. 12), our Lord took upon Himself the office of interpreter, and, accord- 
ing to custom, sat down to perform it. Comp. Zunz, Gottesd. Vortrage der Juden. 
p. 837, and Sepp, Leben Christi, 11. 10, Part 11. p. 122. 

4 The objections that have been urged against the general character of this 
address are most idle and irreverent. Our Lord, who knew the human heart, 
saw here unbelief, and the ordinary Galilean estimate of His divine mission 
(John iy. 45), in their worst forms, and accordingly adopts the language of merci- 
ful warning and reproof. On the whole incident, see some useful comments in 
Lange, Leben Jesu. 11. 4. 9, Part 11. p. 541 sq. 


154 THE MINISTRY IN EASTERN GALILEE. Lect. IV. 


even now these dull-hearted men of Nazareth were fast 
falling back again, we remember with horror what followed, 
—how these wretched men dared to do what even the 
gainsayers at Jerusalem a week before had only begun to 
think of doing, how they thrust Him forth not only from 
their synagogue and their town, but led Him 
to a neighboring declivity, which modern 
travellers have not doubtfully identified,t to cast Him 
down headlong, and how by an exercise of His divine 
power’ He escaped their impious and venge- 
ful hands. 
Henceforth that quiet home in the bosom of the green 
hills of Galilee was no longer to be the Lord’s 
ΠΣ μος earthly resting place. His divine steps were 
Sasi ghtse: «DRE turned to more busy scenes, and, in 
accordance with the voice of ancient proph- 
ecy, to the people that sat in the darkness the Light came; 
and in Capernaum, at but little distance*® from that fair 
and populous plain of “ Gennesar,” which a nearly contem- 
porary visitor has so eloquently described,* the rejected 


Ver. 29. 


Ver. 30. 


1 The exact place to which these wretched and infatuated people endeavored to 
lead our Lord was certainly not the traditional Mount of Precipitation overlook- 
ing the vale of Esdraelon and two miles distant, but apparently one of the preci- 
pices of the western hill which flanks the town,— perhaps that by the present 
Maronite church. See Robinson, Palestine, Vol. ii. p. 8385 (ed. 2); and compare 
Stanley, Sinai and Palestine, p. 863 (ed. 2), Thomson, The Land and the Book, 
Vol. ii. p. 135. In the photograph of Frith (Syria and Palestine, Part 11.) this 
portion of the western hill is not included. See Roberts, Holy Land, Vol. ii. 
Plate 29. 

2 There does not seem sufficient reason for assuming, with Robinson and others, 
that in this there was no exercise of that miraculous power which most of the 
ancient writers (Ambrose, Euthymius, al.) recognize in our Lord’s thus passing 
through the infuriated throng. So also, and rightly, Alford in doc. In all these 
things He manifested alike the exercise of His divine wisdom and His divine 
power; of the former in defining the time in which He vouchsafed to suffer, and of 
the latter in preventing that time being hurried by the impiety and violence of men. 
As Cyril of Alexandria well says, ‘‘it depended on Him to suffer, or not to 
suffer; for He is the Lord of times as well as of things.’»— Comment. on St. Luke, 
Part I. p. 64, where, however, it is just to observe that there is no distinct refer- 
ence to an exercise of miraculous power, but rather of overawing majesty. So 
also Lange, Leben Jesu, 11. 4. 9, Part 11. p. 548. 

3 As to the supposed position of Capernaum, see Lect. 111. p. 121, note 1. 

4 See Josephus, Bell. Jud. 111. 10. 8, — according to Robinson (Palestine, Vol. ii. 


Lect.IV. THE MINISTRY IN EASTERN GALILEE. 155 


One of Nazareth found a more thankful and believing 
home. More thankful, and more believing; 
for, not perhaps without a fresh recollection of 
the miracle performed on one who had lain 
sick among them a few weeks before, the peo- pipe 
ple, we are told by St. Luke, “pressed upon 
Him to hear the word of God;” and we may 
well conceive that it was not without the deep conscious- 
ness and foreknowledge of the active ministry that was 
now to be vouchsafed amid the populous towns of Gennes- 
areth,' that He called the four disciples, who had already 
been with Him for above a year, to leave on this occasion 
for ever their earthly occupations, and to become the “fishers 
of men.” And we know how readily that call 
was obeyed; we know how St. Peter and 
his brother, and the two sons of Thunder, wrought upon 
by that miracle that showed how the crea- 
tures that the hand of the Lord had made 
could gather together at His will, — that mir- 
acle that brought the impressible Peter on his knees,’ and 


Special call to the 
four disciples, 


Ch. v 1. 


Luke v. 10. 


Iuke v. 6. 
Ver. 9. 


p. 402) an overdrawn picture. Thomson, with more judgment, draws a distinc- 
tion between what the land then was and what it has become now. Comp. The 
Land and the Book, Vol. i. p. 536. 

1A very good description of what was probably the state of this populous 
district in the time of our Lord is given by Stanley, Sinai and Palestine, p. 871 
sq. (ed. 2). The remark that “it was to the Roman Palestine almost what the 
manufacturing districts are to England,” is apparently borne out by the indirect 
allusions in the inspired narrative to the populous nature of the district, and by 
what we can infer from the ruins which are still found scattered about on the 
western shores of the lake. Compare Robinson, Palestine, Vol. ii. p. 403. The 
traces of buildings which appear to have been used in the operations of trade, 
and may be the remains of ancient potteries, tanneries, etc., have been observed 
by Dr. Thomson at Tabiga, which he terms ‘‘ the grand manufacturing suburb of 
Capernaum.” — The Land and the Book, Vol. i. p. 547. 

2 The effect which the miracle produced on St. Peter is well commented upon 
by Olshausen (in loc. Vol. i. p. 299, Clark), and by Ewald, Gesch. Christus’, Ὁ. 
252. The contrast between his own conscious unholiness and the holy majesty 
and power of Him who had just wrought the mighty miracle made the fervid 
disciple both on the one hand offer his spontaneous adoration, and on the other 
to beseech his pure, sinless Lord to depart from one who felt and knew in his 
own bosom what sin was. On the whole miracle, see Olshausen, Commentary, 
Vol. i. p. 292 sq. (Clark); Trench, Miracles, p. 126; and compare Lange, Leben 
Jesu, 11. 4. 11, Part 11. p. 562 sq. 


156 THE MINISTRY IN EASTERN GALILEE. Lect. IV. 


filled all with amazement,— obeyed the heavenly voice, 
and left father and earthly callings, nets and vessels, for- 
sook all, and followed Him.) 
This prompt adhesion of men so well known in Caper- 
naum as two at least of the four must have 
meine itheana. been, this ready giving up of everything to 
gogue at Cover follow Jesus of Nazareth, could not have been 
without its effect on the people of Caper- 
naum and its neighborhood. The report, too, of the mira- 
cle, though, perhaps, as yet not fully understood or appre- 
ciated, had probably soon passed from mouth to mouth 
among the fishers and boatmen on the lake, and might 
well have added to the prevailing expectation and excite- 
ment. We may readily imagine, then, the eagerness and 
gladness with which on the following Sab- 
bath the Redeemer’s preaching was listened 
to in the synagogue, and we know the mighty effect that 
was produced by it, enhanced as it was by the subsequent 
healing of the demoniac within its walls.2 How start- 
Jing must have been that scene when the spirits of dark- 
ness, driven by the wild antagonisms of their 
fears and malignities, broke out amid that 
mingled concourse into cries alike of reprobation and of 


Mark i. 21. 


Invke iv. 34. 


1 There seems no reason for doubting that the call of the four disciples men- 
tioned by St. Matthew (ch. iv. 18 sq.) and St. Mark (ch. i. 16 sq.) was contempo- 
raneous with the above call mentioned by St. Luke. The only difficulty is, that 
St. Luke makes it subsequent to the healing of the demoniac and of St. Peter’s 
mother-in-law, while St. Mark places it before. The order of the latter is con- 
firmed by St. Matthew, and distinctly to be preferred, especially as the change 
of order in St. Luke can be partly accounted for by the desire of the Evangel- 
ist to place in immediate contrast the reception in the synagogue at Cana with 
the rejection a week before at Nazareth. See Wieseler, Chron. Synops. p. 285 sq. 

2 From the notice of the hired servants (Mark i. 20), the two vessels employed 
(Luke y. 7), and the subsequent mention of St. John’s acquaintance with one in 
s0 high a position as the high-priest (John xviii. 15), it has been reasonably 
inferred that Zebedee, if not a wealthy man (Jerome, in Matt. iv. 12, opp. to 
Chrys. in Joann. Hom, 11. 1), was at any rate of some position in Capernaum. 

3 See especially Mark i. 27 ( Tisch.), in which this amazement both at the teach- 
ing and the miracle is expressed in the strongest terms:—Ti ἐστιν τοῦτο; δι- 
δαχὴ καινὴ κατ᾽ ἐξουσίαν" καὶ τοῖς πνεύμασιν Tos ἀκαδϑάρτοις ἐπιτάσσει, καὶ 
ὑπακούουσιν αὐτῷ. 


Lect. ΠΥ. THE MINISTRY IN EASTERN GALILEE. 157 


confession, “ Let us alone, —I know thee who thou art; 
the Holy One of God.” What amazement 
was there then when those frightful voices 
were silenced, and the wretched sufferer, 
whose frail body had been the tenement of those hellish oc- 
cupants, though rent and convulsed by the final paroxysm, 
yet a moment afterwards stood both freed ὁ νς; ος 
and unharmed before them.? There were ag Lute iv. 36. 
yet none among those simple-hearted men to Tisai 
object to healings on the Sabbath. There were as yet 
none to make the blasphemous assertion that such power, 
after all, was only due to some league with the prince of 
those spirits that had been commanded with 
such authority, and had obeyed with such 
terror. These men of Capernaum had no 
such doubts; they saw and believed, yea, and, as two Evan- 
gelists record, soon spread the fame of the great Healer 
not only through all the neighboring villages and towns, 
but in all the regions round about Galilee. 

But the wonders of this first Sabbath at {μον δὲ 
Capernaum, this day of which the events 7). wea penfor- 
are so specially and so minutely told us by Mane of miracles 
two Evangelists, had not yet come to their 
close. Immediately after that amazing scene in the syna- 


Mark i. 24. 
Luke iv. 34. 


Matt. xii. 24. 
Mark iii. 32. 


1 In the circumstances connected with this and other miracles performed on 
demoniacs, three things are worthy of notice: (1) the lost consciousness of per- 
sonality on the part of the sufferer, the man becoming, as it were, identified with, 
and at times the mouthpiece of, the devil within him (Mark v. 7, Luke viii. 28); 
(2) the terror-stricken recognition on the part of the devils of Jesus as the Son 
of God and their future Judge (Matt. viii. 29, Mark iii. 11, v. 7, Luke viii. 28), 
enhanced in the present narrative by the awful ἔα! (Luke iv. 34) of the recoiling 
demon; (3) the prohibition from speaking on the part of our Lord (Mark i. 34, iii. 
12, Luke iv. 41), possibly that the multitude might not believe in their Redeemer 
on the testimony of devils. Compare Cyril Alex. on Luke iv. 41, Part 1. p. 71 
(Transl.). Hence, perhaps. the omission of the prohibition in the case of the 
demoniacs of Gadara or Gergesa, when only those were present whose faith 
was already firm and convictions true and settled. 

2 For further comments on this miracle, see Trench, Miracles, p. 230, and for 
some thoughtful observations on the case of demoniacal possessions generally, 
Olshausen, Commentary, p.305. Compare also Deyling, Obs. Sacr. XXVIII. Part 
11. Ὁ. 818 sq. 

14 


158 THE MINISTRY IN EASTERN GALILEE. Lect. IV. 


gogue, probably about mid-day,’ our Lord, with His four 
freshly-called disciples round Him, enters 
into the common dwelling of two of the 
number, and graciously vouchsafes to that 
small home-circle, on the person of the mother-in-law of 
St. Peter, another merciful display of those healing powers, 
of which a whole synagogue had but lately been witness. 
There, perhaps in the low and crowded suburb,’ the 
mother-in-law of the Apostle Peter was laid, and sick, as 
the physician-Evangelist characteristically notices, of a 
great fever’ But the Healer was now nigh at hand. Anx- 
iously they tell Him of her state; anxiously they beseech 
His help; and with power and majesty that help is be- 

πον.  Stowed. With His voice the Lord rebukes* 

Matt. viii.85. the evil influence of the disease, with His hand 

“yx why; He touches the sufferer,— and she, who a mo- 
ment before lay subdued and powerless, now rises, supported. 


Matt. i. 2. 
Ver. 29. 


1 It would seem, from a passage in Josephus, that on the Sabbath-day the usual 
hour for the meal of which our Lord appears afterwards to have partaken in 
the house of the two brothers was mid-day: ἕκτη ὥρα ka¥ ἣν τοῖς σάββασιν 
ἀριστοποιεῖσϑαι νόμιμον ἐστὶν ἡμῖν. De Vita Sua, cap. 54. The service in the 
synagogue, the forms and hours of which appear to have been studiously con- 
formed to those in the temple-worship (Vitringa, de Synag. p. 42, Jost, Gesch. 
des Judenth. Vol. i. p. 170), would in all probability have commenced about 
nine o’clock, and ended some time before mid-day. 

2 The conjecture of Dr. Thomson above alluded to (p. 155, note 1), that Tabiga 
is the site of what was the manufacturing suburb of Capernaum, derives some 
support from the above incident, there being marshy land in the vicinity which 
might account for the “great fever’? under which St. Peter’s mother-in-law 
was suffering. See The Land and the Book, Vol.i. p. 547. There may be also a 
slight hint at the season of the year, as we learn from modern travellers that in 
the East fevers prevail in spring and autumn, dysentery in the summer. Comp. 
Winer, RWB. Art. ‘‘ Krankheiten,” Vol. i. p. 678. 

8 This passage has been often referred to as illustrating not only the accuracy, 
but the profession of St. Luke. We learn from the Greek medical writers that 
there was a recognized distinction between ‘“ great” and “small” fevers. See 
Galen, de Different Febr. 1. cited by Wetstein in loc. 

4 The exact expression in the original should not be overlooked, ἐπετίμησεν 
τῷ πυρετῷ (Luke iy. 89), according to which the disease, like the boisterous 
wind and stirred-up sea in the miracle on the lake (Matt. viii. 27, Mark iv. sq., 
Luke viii. 24), is treated as a hostile potency. Deductions as to the presence of 
spiritual agencies in similar cases must be made with caution; but the expression 
is remarkable, and has not been left unnoticed by the early expositors. See 
especially Cyril Alex. in loc. Part 1. p. 69 (Transl.). 


Lect.IV. THE MINISTRY IN EASTERN GALILEE. 159 


by the Divine hand, and, as all the three Synoptical Evan- 
gelists especially notice, ministers unto them,’ and with 
wonted strength and health prepares for our Lord and His 
followers the Sabbath mid-day meal. And yet the record 
of that eventful day is not concluded. <A few hours later, 
at sun-set,? the whole city, with all its sick, 
gathers at the door of the house, and ancient 
prophecy again finds its fulfilment in that 
exercise of Divine power that raised the sick and healed 
demoniacs, and yet chained in silence the driven-forth 
spirits,? who, with the recognition of terror, both knew 
Him and would have proclaimed Him as 
man’s Redeemer and their own Judge. 
What an insight does the account of this day, so marked 
by deeds of love and mercy, give us into 
the nature of our Lord’s ministry in Galilee! γΤῆο nature of 


our Lord’s minis- 


What holy activities, what ceaseless acts of terial labors, as in- 
. : . . . dicated by this one 

mercies! Such a picture does it give us of aay. 

their actual nature and amount, that we may 

well conceive that the single day, with all its quickly suc- 

ceeding events, has been thus minutely portrayed to show 


us what our Redeemer’s ministerial life really was,‘ and to 


Mark i. 33, 
Tsai. liii. 4. 


Mark i. 32. 


1 ‘*Not only doth He cure her from her disease,” says Theophylact, ‘‘ but also 
infuses in her full strength and power, enabling her to minister.’’— In Lue. iy. 
89, p. 334 (Paris, 1631). Compare also Chrysost. in loc. For some very good 
remarks on the manner in which this miracle was performed, see Cyril Alex. in 
loc. Part I. p. 70 sq. (Transl.). Compare also Trench, Miracles, p. 284. 

2 This note of time, supplied both by St. Mark (i. 32) and St. Luke (iv. 40), 
serves to mark that the Sabbath was over, after which the sick and suffering 
could legally be brought to our Lord. See Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr. Vol. i. p. 806 
(Roterod. 1686). So rightly Theophylact (in Marc. i. 32), and the Scholiast in 
Cramer, Caten. Vol. i. p. 278. 

8 The comment of Cyril Alex. (referred to above, p. 157, note 1) seems correct 
and pertinent: ‘‘ He would not permit the unclean demons to confess Him, for 
‘it was not fitting for them to usurp the glory of the Apostolic office, nor with 
impure tongue to talk of the mystery of Christ.””— Part I. p. 71 (Transl.). See 
also Theophyl. in Zue. iv. 41 (first interpretation), who subjoins the good practical 
remark, — οὐχ ὡραῖος aivos ἐν στόματι ἁμαρτωλῶν. 

4 The incidents of this first Sabbath at Capernaum are well noticed by Ewald 
( Gesch. Christus’, Ὁ. 254 sq.), as showing what the nature of our Lord’s holy 
labors really was. Comp. Lange, Leben Jesu, 11. 4. 11, p. 559sq. The occurrence 
of so many events on a single day makes the short duration of the present min- 
istry in Galilee less improbable. 


100 THE MINISTRY IN EASTERN GALILEE. Lect. IV. 


justify, if need be, the noble hyperbole of the beloved 
Apostle, that if the things which Jesus did should be writ- 
ten every one, “the world itself could not 
contain the books that should be written.” 
What a day too had this been for Capernaum! What 
manifestations of Divine power had been vouchsafed to 
them in their synagogue! what mercies had 
been showered down upon them in their 
streets! Could they, and did they, remain insensible to 
such displays of omnipotence? It would have been indeed 
impossible; and it is not with surprise that we find that 
in the dawn! of the following morning the multitudes, 
conducted as it would seem by Peter and 
the newly-called disciples, tracked out the 
great Healer to the lonely place whither 
He had withdrawn to commune with His Father, broke in 
upon His very prayers, and strove to prevent His leaving 
those whom He had now so preéminently 
blessed. But it might not be. That request 
could not be granted in the exclusive manner in which it 
had been urged. Though the faith of these men of Ca- 
pernaum was subsequently rewarded by our Lord’s vouch- 
safing soon to return again, and by His gracious choice of 
Capernaum as His principal place of abode, yet now, as 
He alike tells both them and His disciples. 
He must fulfil His heavenly mission by 
preaching to others as well as unto them. The blessings 
of the Gospel were to be extended to the other towns and 
villages by those peopled shores,? and thither, with His 


John xxi. 25. 


Mark i. 33. 


Mark i, 35. 
Luke iv. 42. 


Ch, iv. 42. 


Mark i. 38. 


1 We learn from St. Mark that our Lord retired before day broke to some 
lonely spot, apparently at no great distance from Capernaum (comp. Stanley, 
Sinai and Palestine, ch. X. p. 874), and was there praying. See ch. i. 32. From 
the tenses used and the special note of time, ἔννυχα λίαν (Lachm., Tisch.), it 
would seem that He had been there some little time before He was discovered by 
St. Peter and those with him, who appear to have thus eagerly followed our 
Lord (κατεδίωξαν αὐτὸν) at the instigation of the multitude. See Luke iv. 42, 
and compare Lange, Leben Jesu, 11. 4. 11, Part 11. p. 561. 

2 The expression used by St. Mark (ch. i. 88) is Tas ἐχομένας κωμοπόλεις (St. 
Luke adopts the more general term, ταῖς ἑτέραις πόλεσιν); which seems to mark 


Lect. 17. THE MINISTRY IN EASTERN GALILEE. 161 


small company of followers, the Lord departed, “healing,” 
as St. Matthew tells us, “all manner of sick- 

ness, and all manner of disease, among the 

people.” 

How long this circuit lasted we are not specially in- 
formed, but as one incident only, the healing 
of the earnest and adoring leper,’ appears 
to belong to this journey, we may perhaps, 
not without some probability, believe that the present 
circuit lasted but a few days, and that the return to Caper- 
naum took place on the day before the Sab- 
bath of that week, — a Sabbath of which we 
have some special notices.” 


Luke iv. 23. 


Probable dura- 
tion of this circuit. 


Mark ti. 1. 


the sort of “ village-towns” (compare Strabo, Geogr. xI1. pp. 587, 557) with 
which the whole adjacent plain of Gennesareth was closely studded. Compare 
Stanley, Sinai and Palest. ch. X. p. 370. 

1 It seems right to speak guardedly, as St. Matthew (ch. viii. 1) here appears 
to add a note of time, καταβάντι δὲ αὐτῷ ἀπὸ τοῦ ὄρους (Rec., Tisch.). As, 
however, there is nothing very definitely connective in the καὶ ἰδοὺ λεπρὸς προ- 
σελϑὼν kK. τ. A., as St. Mark and St. Luke both agree in their position of the 
miracle, and as the place it occupies in St. Matthew’s Gospel can be reasona- 
bly accounted for (see Lightfoot, Harmony, Vol. i. p. 512), we seem justified in 
adhering to the order of St. Mark and St. Luke. Compare Wieseler, Chron. 
Synops. p. 806 sq. On the miracle itself, one of the most remarkable character- 
istics of which was, that, as the three Evangelists all specify (Matt. viii. 13, Mark 
i. 41, Luke νυ. 13), our Lord touched the sufferer (δεικνὺς ὅτι ἢ ἁγία αὐτοῦ σὰρξ 
ἁγιασμοῦ μετεδίδου, Theoph. in Matt. 1. c.), see Trench, Miracles, p. 210; and 
for some good notices on the nature of the disease, Von Ammon, Leben Jesu, 
Vol. i. p. 111, and the frightful account in Thomson, Land and Book, Vol. ii. 
p. 516. The subject is treated very fully and completely in Winer, RWB. Art. 
*¢ Aussatz,”? Vol. i. p. 114 sq. 

2 As the circuit was probably confined to the ‘‘ village-towns”’ on the western 
shores of the lake and in the vicinity of Capernaum (see above, p. 160, note 2), we 
have an additional reason for thinking that it did not last more than four or five 
days, and that thus our Lord might easily and naturally be found at Capernaum 
on the following Sabbath, which, as we shall see below, has a definite and dis- 
tinctive date. No objection against this chronological arrangement can be 
founded on the fact that our Lord “ preached in their synagogues ” (Mark i. 39, 
Luke iv. 44), as it appears certain, setting aside extraordinary days (of which 
there would seem to have been one in this very week, — the New Moon of Nisan), 
there were services on the Mondays and Thursdays (compare Mishna, Tract 
“ Megillah,” 1. 2), in which the law was read and probably expounded, and to 
which the Talmudists (on “ Baba, Bathra,”’ 4) assigned as great an antiquity as 
the days of Ezra. See Lightfoot, Harmony, Vol. i. p. 476 (Roterod. 1686), Vit- 
ringa, de Synag. 1.2.2, Ὁ. 287, and compare Jost, Gesch. des Judenth. Vol. i. p. 
168 sq. Some valuable observations on the subject of our Lord and His Apostles 
preaching in synagogues will be found in Vitringa, de Synag. 111. 1. 7, p. 696 sq. 


‘ 14* 


162 THE MINISTRY IN EASTERN GALILEE. Lect. IV. 


Meanwhile Capernaum had not forgotten its Healer and 
Redeemer, though evil men from other parts 

ponana nina. Of Galilee, and, as it is significantly added, 
ro a of Judea and Jerusalem, had now come in 
among them,'— men, as it would seem, 

specially sent to collect charges against our 

Lord, and to mature the savage counsels which, we have 
already seen,” had been taken by the party of the Sanhe- 
drin. No sooner was it noised abroad that He had 
returned, than we find the whole city flocking to the 
house, so that, as St. Mark with one of his graphic notices 
tells us, “there was no room to receive them, 

no not so much as about the door.” But 

there were some without who would not be sent away. 
One sinful® but heart-touched paralytic there was, whose 
body and soul alike needed healing, and whose faith was 
such that, when entry in the usual way was found to be 


Luke v. 17. 


Ch. ti. 2. 


1 We owe the important notice of the precise quarter from which these evil 
men came solely to St. Luke. From the other two Synoptical Evangelists we 
only Jearn that the objectors were Scribes (Matt. ix. 3, Mark ii. 6), and that they 
appear to have come there with a sinister intent. The allusion, however, to 
Judea and Jerusalem (especially when compared with Mark iii. 22, γραμματεῖς 
of amd Ἱεροσολύμων καταβάντες), throws a light upon the whole, and gives 
some plausibility to the supposition that the ‘‘ Scribes and Pharisees’? we here 
meet with for the first time in Galilee were emissaries from the hostile party at 
Jerusalem. These men, promptly uniting themselves with others that they 
found to be like-minded in Galilee, form a settled plan of collecting charges 
against our Lord, and the sequel shows with what feelings and in what spirit 
they were acting. For a while they wear the mask; they reason (Luke y. 21), 
they murmur (ver. 380), they insidiously watch (ch. vi. 7). Soon, however, all 
disguise is thrown aside; a deed of mercy on the Sabbath, in spite of their tacit 
protest, hurries them on to their ruthless decision. That decision is at Caper- 
naum what it had already been at Jerusalem (John v. 18),— death. See Matt. 
xii. 14, Mark iii. 6. 

2 See above, Lect. 111. p. 188. 

8 We may infer this from the declaration of our Lord recorded by all the 
three Synoptical Evangelists, ἀφέωνταί σου ai ἁμαρτίαι, Matt. ix. 2, Mark ii. 
5; comp. Luke vy. 206. The disease of the man, as Neander observes, may have 
been due to sinful excesses; and the consciousness, if not of this connection, yet 
of the guilt within him, was such that spirit and body reacted on each other, and 
an assurance of forgiveness was first needed, before the sensible pledge of it 
extended to him by his cure could be fully and properly appreciated. See Life 


of Christ, p. 272 (Bohn), and compare Olshausen, Commentary, Vol. i. p. 800 sq. 
(Clark). 


ΤΕοτ. ΤΥ. THE MINISTRY IN EASTERN GALILEE. 163 


impracticable, he prevailed on friends to bear him up the 
outside staircase, and let him down through the roof into 
the upper chamber, where, as it would seem from the nar- 
rative, our Lord was preaching to the mingled multitude 
both around Him and in the courtyard below.' And we 
remember well how that faith prevailed, and 
how the soul was healed first and then the 
palsied body, and how the last act was made 
use of, as it were, to justify the first in the eyes of those 
Scribes and Pharisees who had stolen in among the simple- 
hearted men of Capernaum, and were finding blasphemy 
in the exercise of the Divine power and prerogatives of 
the Son of God. But this time at’ least those intruders 
were silenced, for when the sufferer obeyed His Lord’s 
command, and showed the completeness of his restored 
powers? by bearing his bed and walking through that now 
yielding throng, not only amazement, but,as , , ς ba 
St. Matthew and St. Luke both notice, fear Tish.) 
found its way into their hearts, and made the pus 
lips confess “that they had seen strange things that day.” 
But another opportunity soon offered itself to these 


Luke v. 20. 
Ver. 24. 


1 The course adopted was as follows: As the bearers could not enter the house, 
on account of the press (Mark ii. 4), they ascend by the outside staircase that led 
from the street to the roof (Winer, RWB. Art. *‘ Dach,” Vol. i. p. 242), proceed- 
ing thereon till they come to the spot over which they judged our Lord to be. 
They then remove the tiles, or thin stone slabs, which are sometimes used even 
at this day (see Thomson, cited below), and make an opening (Mark ii. 4, Luke 
v. 19; comp. Joseph. Antig. χιν. 15. 12), through which, perhaps assisted by 
those below, they let the man down into the ὕπερῷον, or large and commonly 
low chamber beneath, in which, or perhaps rather under the verandah of which, 
the Lord then was. See Thomson, The Land and the Book, Vol. ii. p. 7 sq., 
Meyer, Komment. wiber Mark. p. 24 sq., and compare the good article in Kitto, 
Bibl. Cyclop. Vol. i. p. 874 sq., especially p. 877. 

2‘*He saith to the paralytic, Rise, and take up thy bed, to add a greater con- 
firmation to the miracle, as not being in appearance only; and, at the same time, 
to show that He not only healed him, but infused power into him.” —Theophyl. 
on Mark ii.11. The command on the former occasion that it was given (John 
v. 8) probably also involved a reference to Christ’s lordship over the Sabbath. 
Comp. Lect. 111. p. 187. For further comments on this miracle, see Olshausen, 
Commentary, Vol. i. p. 326 sq., Lange, Leben Jesu, 11. 4.14, Part 11. p. 666 sq., 
Trench, Notes on the Miracles, p. 199 sq.; and for some curious alleXorical appli- 
cations, Theophylact, loc cit. p. 199 (Paris, 1631). 


164 THE MINISTRY IN EASTERN GALILEE. Lect. IV. 


captious and malignant emissaries. Every prejudice was 

to be rudely shocked, when, as it would 

The call of δ. seem, on the very same day, our Lord called 
Matthew, and the " 


feast athishowe. from his very toll-booth, by the side of the 
εν τς: lake, a publican, Matthew,!— ἃ publican, to 
be one of His followers and disciples. Here 

was an infraction of all that Pharisaical prejudice held to 
be most clear and recognized, an infraction, too, against 
which they were soon able to inveigh openly, when, at the 
feast which the grateful publican made in honor of His 
Lord, and to which, perhaps by way of farewell, many of 
his old associates were summoned,? the great Teacher 
openly sat down to meat “with publicans and sinners.” 
This was an opportunity that could not be neglected. 
The disciples are taxed with their own and their Master’s 


1 There seems no reason for calling in question the opinion of most of the 
more ancient writers (see Const. Apost. v111. 22, and Coteler, in loc.; contrast, 
however, Heracleon, ap. Clem. Alex. Strom. Iv. 11), that Levi (Mark ii. 14, Luke 
vy. 27) and Matthew (Matt. ix.9) are names of one and the same person. In 
favor of this identity, we have (1) the perfect agreement, both as to place and all 
attendant circumstances, of the narrative of the calling of Matthew (Matt. ix. 
10) with that of the calling of Levi (Mark ii. 15, Luke v. 29); (2) the absence on 
the lists of the Apostles of any trace of the name Levi (the attempted identifica- 
tion with Lebbzus is in the highest degree improbable), while the name of Mat- 
thew occurs in all, and is specified by the first Evangelist (ch. x. 8) as of that 
earthly calling which is here definitely ascribed by the second Evangelist to 
Levi. Itis far from improbable that, after and in memory of his call, the grate- 
ful publican changed his name to one more appropriate and significant. He 
was now no longer "12 but 7°47, not Levi but Theodore, one who might well 
deem both himself and all his future life a veritable “‘ gift of God.” See Winer, 
RWB. 8. vy. “‘ Name,” Vol. ii. p. 188. 

2 This supposition, which is due to Neander (Life of Christ, p. 230, Bohn), is 
not without some probability; at the same time the specially inserted dative 
αὐτῷ (Luke y. 29) seems clearly to imply that St. Matthew’s first object in giving 
the entertainment was to do honor to our Lord, and thereby to commemorate 
his own now highly-favored lot. Compare Hall, Contempl.1v.4. The attempt 
to show that the feast. mentioned by St. Matthew is not that mentioned by St. 
Mark and St. Luke (Greswell, Dissert. xxv. Vol. ii. p. 897) is by no means suc- 
cessful; still less the attempt of Meyer (Komment. tib. Matt. p. 195) to establish a 
discrepancy between the first and the other two Synoptical Evangelists as to the 
locality of the feast. That ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ (Matt. ix. 10) refers to the house of St. 
Matthew (ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ τῇ ἐκείνου, Chrys.) is not only grammatically possible, 
but in a high degree natural and probable; the general expression 1s studiedly 
used by the Apostle as keeping in the background the fact of his own grateful 
hospitality. See Blunt, Veracity of Evangelists, § 5, p. 80 sq. 


Lect.IV. ΤῊΝ MINISTRY IN EASTERN GALILEE. 165 


laxity, to which the Lord vouchsafes an answer, turning 
against these gainsayers the very term in which their pre- 
judice had expressed itself. The Redeemer, He tells them, 
had “not come to call the righteous, but sin- 
ners to repentance.” If the publicans were 
sinners, then to them must He vouchsafe His presence, 
then with them was it meet that He should be found. It 
was in vain that they shifted their ground, and brought 
forward the stern practices of John’s disciples, some of 
whom it is noticed were present, and some of 

whom seem to have been speakers. They ΤΡ 
were not worldly, they fasted; the prophet 

of Nazareth feasted. Yea, but the very garments worn 
by those around, and the very wine they were drinking, 
suggested a simile that conveyed the true answer, — 
-the New and the Old could not be brought together ;+ 
the spirit of the new dispensation was incompatible with 
the dead formalities of a dispensation that now, with all 
that marked it, was gone and passed away for ever. 

The day that followed was apparently a Sabbath,? the 
second-first Sabbath as it is especially defined eee sn | 
by St. Luke, — the first Sabbath, as it is now _ tie plucking of the 
most plausibly explained, of a year that stood “°°” 
second in a sabbatical cycle,? — when again the same bit- 


Matt. ix. 13. 


1 Some good comments on this text, of which the above is a summary, will be 
found in Cyril Alex. Comment. on St. Luke, Part 11. p. 89 (Oxf. 1859). 

2 This assertion rests, not on the ἐν ἐκείνῳ τῷ καιρῷ (ch. xii. 1) of St. Mat- 
thew, which is only a general note of time, but on the apparent close connection 
in point of time between the different charges of the Pharisees and their adher- 
ents. The Passover was nigh at hand, and time was pressing. 

3 There are four explanations of this difficult word that deserve consideration: 
(a) that of Theophylact (in Joc.), that it was a Sabbath that immediately suc- 
ceeded a festival, which, from falling on the παρασκευή, was observed as a regu. 
lar Sabbath; (0) that of Scaliger (de Emend. Temp. p. 557), that it was the Sabbath 
that succeeded the second day of the Passover; (6) that of Hitzig (Ost. w. Pyingst. 
p. 19), that it was the fifteenth of Nisan, the fourteenth being, ἐξ is asserted, 
always coincident with a Sabbath; (d) that of Wieseler (Chron. Synops. p. 281 
sq.), as stated in the text. Of these (a) is open to the decisive objection that 
such concurrences must have been frequent, and that if such was the custom, 
and such the designation, we must have found some trace of it elsewhere; (c) 
involves an assumption not historically demonstrable (see Wieseler, Chron, 


100 THE MINISTRY IN EASTERN GALILEE.  Lecv. IV. 


ter spirit of Pharisaical malice finds opportunity for dis- 
playing itself. Yesterday the social privacy of the publi- 
can’s feast, to-day the peace and rest of the year’s first 
Sabbath,' is broken in upon by the malignity of that same 
gathered company of Pharisees whom Judea and Jeru- 
salem, and alas too Galilee, had sent forth to 

pee icopece forejudge and to condemn. With the full 

ae ©" sanction of the Mosaic law the disciples were 
plucking the ears of ripening corn, and rub- 

bing them in their hands. The act was permissible, but 
the day was holy,’ and the charge, partly in the way of 
rebuke to the disciples, partly in the way of complaint to 
our Lord, who was tacitly sanctioning their act, is promptly 
made with every assumption of offended piety, — “ Why 
do ye do that which it is not lawful to do on 
the Sabbath?” Why indeed! The reason 
was obvious; the justification immediate. Did not the 
history of the man after God’s own heart justify such an 


Luke vi. 2. 


Synops. p. 353 sq.), and, equally with (0), labors under the formidable objection 
that as the event here specified is thus at, and not, as every reasonable system of 
chronology appears to suggest, before a Passover, the Passover at the feeding of 
the five thousand (John vi. 4) must be referred to a succeeding year, and an 
interval of more than a year assumed to exist between the fifth and sixth chap- 
ters of St. John. We adopt, then, (d), as open to no serious objections, as involv- 
ing no chronological difficulties, and as apparently having some slight historical 
basis to rest upon, viz. that at this period years appear to have been reckoned by 
their place in a Sabbatical cycle. Comp. Joseph. Antiqg. x1v. 10.6. The word is 
omitted in the important MSS. B and L, and a few ancient versions (see Tischen- 
dorf in loc.), but seems certainly genuine, there being an obvious reason for its 
omission, and none for its insertion. 

1 The exact date of this Sabbath, according to our present calendar, if we can 
rely on the tables of Wurm and Wieseler, would seem to be April 9,—a date 
when the corn would be forward enough in many localities to be rubbed in the 
hands. See Wieseler, Chron. Synops. p. 225 sq., and compare Lect. 111. p. 107, 
note 3. 

2 The act was regarded as a kind of petty harvesting, and as such was regarded 
by the ceremonial Pharisee as forbidden, if not by the written, yet by the oral 
law: ‘‘ Metens sabbato vel tantillum reus est. Et vellere spicas est species mes- 
sionis.”” Maimonides, Tit. ‘‘ Shabbath,” ch. 1x. cited by Lightfoot (Hor. Hebr. in 
Matt. xii. 2, Vol. ii. p. 820), who further reminds us that, according to the tradi- 
tional law, the punishment for the offence was capital, the action being one of 
those “per quz reus fit homo lapidationis atque excisionis.’’— Maimon. ib. ch. 
vii. It is not probable that at this period such a penalty would ever have been 
pressed ; still it is not unreasonable to suppose that the legally grave nature of the 


Lreot. IV. THE MINISTRY IN EASTERN GALILEE. 167 


act? Did not the unblamed acts of the great type of Him 
who steod before them supply the substance, 
as did ancient prophecy the exact terms of 
the answer that was vouchsafed, “I will have 
mercy, and not sacrifice”? Mercy, and not sacrifice, ~ 
words uttered already the day before, but 
now accompanied with a striking declaration, 
which some of those standing by might have remembered 
had been practically illustrated three weeks before in Je- 
rusalem by a deed of mercy and power,’ even “that the 
Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath,” 
and of all its alleged restrictions. 

And now hostility deepens. On the next, or apparently 
next day but one,? which, in the case of the 
year we are considering (A. τ. c. 782), COM- man mith arene 
putation would seem to fix as the seventh 7% hand om a 
day of the first month, and which we may infer 
from a passage in Ezekiel was specially regarded as a holy 
day,’ we almost detect traces of a regular stratagem. A 
man in the synagogue afflicted with a with- 
ered right hand, placed perchance in a promi- 
nent position, forms the subject of a question which these 
wretched spies not only entertain in their 
hearts, but even presume openly to propound 
to our Lord,—“was it lawful to heal on 
the Sabbath-day?” The answer was prompt and practi- 


1 Sam. xxi. 6. 
Hos. vi. 6. 


Matt. tx, 18. 


Luke vi. 5, 


Luke vi. 6. 


Luke vi. 7,8. 
Natt. xii. 10. 


supposed offence may have tended to call forth from our Lord that full and 
explicit vindication of His disciples which the Evangelists have recorded. 

1 See Lect. 111. p. 187. 

2 See below, p. 182, note 1, from which it would seem that there is an error of 
a day in the tables of Wurm and Wieseler. 

3 After speaking of the first month, and the sacrifices to be observed therein, 
the prophet adds (ch. xly. 20): “And so thou shalt do the seventh day of the 
month for every one that erreth, and for him that is simple: so shall ye reconcile 
the house.” From these words, when coupled with the similar notice of the 
solemn first day of Nisan in the verses that precede, and the notice of the still 
more solemn fourteenth day in the verses that follow, it has been apparently 
rightly inferred that the seventh of Nisan was regarded as holy, and might 
appropriately be designated by St. Luke (ch. vi. 6) as ἕτερον σάββατον. Comp. 
Wieseler, Chron. Synops. p. 287. 


108 THE MINISTRY IN EASTERN GALILEE. Lect. IV. 


eal: first the command to the sufferer to rise from his 
place and stand forth in the midst; then the all-em- 
bracing gaze’ of grief and anger, and, lastly, 
after a few reproving words, the immediate 
performance of the miracle. But such an 
answer malice and infidelity could neither receive nor en- 
dure. The flame of savage vengeance at once breaks out. 
“They were filled with madness” are the remarkable 

ee) ἐδ words of St. Luke; they go forth from the 

Matt. xii. synagogue, they hold a hasty council, yea, 

aig they join with their very political opponents, 
the followers of Herod Antipas? as St. Mark has been 
moved to record, and now deliberately lay plans to slay 
the great Healer. The cup, in their eyes, is 
full. Two days since blasphemy, as they 
deemed it, had been spoken; this, however, they might 
have borne with; but publicans have been received, the 


Luke vi. 8. 
Mark iii. 5. 


Inke v. 21. 


1 Not only St. Mark, but St. Luke notices this act of our Lord’s, both using the 
same expressive word, περιβλεψάμενος. On the use of this term by St. Mark, 
comp. p. 39, note 1. 

2 The present miracle forms one of the seven which are particularly noticed as 
having been performed on the Sabbath (see John v. 9, Mark i. 21, Mark i. 29, 
John ix. 14, Luke xiii. 14, Luke xiv. 1, and comp. Crit. Sacr. Thesaur. Nov. Vol. 
ii. p. 196), and is specially the one before the performance of which the Lord 
vouchsafes to vindicate the lawfulness (Matt. xii. 12) of such acts of mercy, by 
an appeal to recognized principles of justice and mercy which even the Pharisees 
could not reject or deny. For some comments on the miracle, the nature of 
which was the immediate restoration of the nutritive powers of nature to a part 
where they had perhaps by degrees but now permanently ceased to act (Winer, 
RWB. Art. “ Krankheiten,” Vol, i. p. 674), compare Hook, Serm. on the Mira- 
cles, Vol. i. p. 135 sq., and especially see Trench, Notes on the Miracles, Ὁ. 812 sq. 

3 There seems to be no reason to dissent from the conjecturally expressed 
opinion of Origen (Comm. in Matt. Tom. xvi. 26) that the Herodians were a 
political sect who, as their name implies, were partisans of Herod Antipas (οἱ τὰ 
Ἡρώδου φρονοῦντες, Joseph. Antig. xtv. 15. 10), and, by consequence, of the 
Roman government, so far as it tended to maintain his influence. Compare 
Ewald, Gesch. Christus’ (Vol. v.), p. 48 sq. Thus they were really, as Meyer 
(Komment. ib. Matt. xxii. 16) defines them, royalists as opposed to maintainers 
of theocratic principles; still, being members of a political and not a religious 
sect, they might easily be found in coalitions with one of the latter sects for tem- 
porary objects which might affect, or be thought to affect, the interests of both. 
Comp. Matt. xxii. 16, Mark xii. 18, where they again appear in temporary union 
with the Pharisees. For further comments, see Winer, RWB. 5. v. Vol. i. p. 486, 
Herzog, Real-Encycl. 8. v. Vol. vii. p. 14, and compare Lightfoot, Harm. Evang. 
§ 16, Vol. i. p. 470. 


ΤΕστ. ΤΥ. THE MINISTRY IN EASTERN GALILEE. 169 


rest of a weekly Sabbath infringed upon, and now, worst of 
all, a Zegal Sabbath has been profaned by — beneficence; 
that profanity must be washed out by blood. As but a short 
time before in Jerusalem, so now in Galilee the fearful 
determination is distinctly formed of compassing the death 
of One whose life-giving words their own ears had heard, 
and whose deeds of mercy their own eyes had been per- 
mitted to behold. 

This is a very important turning-point in the Gospel- 
history, and it prepares us for the event ι 
which followed, perhaps only a day or two tein aera 
afterwards, — and which now the deepening 974,5e7mon 0” the 
animosities against the sacred person of our 
Redeemer rendered in a high degree natural and appropri- 
ate, —a retirement into the lonely hills on the western 
side of the lake, and the choice of twelve pillars for the 
not yet consolidated, yet already endangered Church. 
There, on that horned hill of Hattin, which a late tradi- 
tion does not in this case appear to have erroneously 
selected,? was the scene of the formal compacting and 
framing together of the spiritual temple of God; there 
too was heard that heavenly summary of the life and prac- 
tice of Christianity which age after age has regarded as 
the most sacred heritage that God has vouchsafed unto 
His Church.’ 


1 The only note of time is ἐν Tats ἡμέραις ταύταις (Luke vi. 12), which, though 
far too general to be quoted in support of the above supposition, does not in any 
way seem opposed to it. There appears much in favor of a close connection in 
point of time between the formal choice of the Apostles and these murderous 
determinations of the hierarchical party and their adherents. Compare Ewald, 
Gesch. Christus’ (Vol. v.) p. 270 sq. 

2 See Robinson, Palestine, Vol. ii. p. 870 sq. (ed. 2), who admits that, though 
this appears to be only a Jate tradition of the Latin Church, ‘‘ there is nothing 
in the form or circumstances of the hill itself to contradict the supposition.” So 
far, indeed, it may be added, is this from being the case, that Dr. Stanley finds 
the conformation of the hill so strikingly in accordance with what we read in 
the Gospel narrative, ‘“‘as almost to force the inference that in this instance the 
eye of those who selected the spot was for once rightly guided.” — Sinai and 
Palestine, p. 364 (ed. 2). Thomson (The Land and the Book, Vol. ii. p. 118) speaks 
far more slightingly than is usual with that agreeable and observant writer. 

8 Of the many expository works on this divine discourse the following may be 


15 


170 THE MINISTRY IN EASTERN GALILEE. Lect. IV. 


I must here be tempted into no digressions, for there 

a. ae several events yet before us for considera- 
the Sermon on the tion; still, at such an important point in 
mt our history, it does seem almost wrong to 
suppress the humble statement of an opinion on a most 
serious and yet most contested question in reference to this 
divine discourse. Let me say, then, with that brevity that 
our limits demand, — /irst, that there seem greatly pre- 
ponderant reasons for believing the sermon recorded by St. 
Luke to be substantially the same with that recited by St. 
Matthew ;* Secondly, that the divine unity which per- 
vades the whole totally precludes our believing that St. 
Matthew is here presenting us only with a general collec- 
tion of discourses, uttered at different times, and leads us 
distinctly to maintain the more natural and reasonable 
opinion, that this holy and blessed Sermon was uttered as 
it is here delivered to us?; Thirdly, that of the modes 


selected as appearing, perhaps more particularly, to deserve the attention of the 
student: the exposition of Chrysostom in his Commentary on St. Matthew; 
Augustine, de Sermone Domini, Vol. iii. p. 1229 sq. (Migné), and with it Trench, 
Serm. on the Mount (ed. 2); Pott, de Indole Orat. Mont. (Helmst. 1788), whose 
general conclusion, however, as to the nature of the Sermon, does not appear 
plausible; the exegetical comments of Stier (Disc. of our Lord, Vol. i. p. 90, 
Clark) and Maldonatus (Comment. p. 95); the special work of Tholuck, Berg- 
predigt (translated in £dinb. Cabinet Libr.); and, lastly, the more directly 
practical comments and discourses of Bp. Blackall (Lond. 1717) and James Blair 
(Lond. 1740, with a commendatory preface by Waterland); to which may be 
added the comments in Taylor, Life of Christ, 11. 12, Vol. i. p. 190 (Lond. 1836), 
and in Lange, Leben Jesu, τι. 4. 12, Part 11. p. 566 sq. 

1 The main arguments are,—that the beginning and end of the Sermon are 
nearly identical in both Gospels; that the precepts, as recited by St. Luke, are 
in the same general order as those in St. Matthew, and that they are often 
expressed in nearly the same words; and, lastly, that each Evangelist specifies 
the same miracle, viz. the healing of the centurion’s servant, as having taken 
place shortly after the Sermon, on our Lord’s entry into Capernaum. Compare 
Matt. viii. 5, Luke vii. 2 sq., and see Tholuck, Sermon on the Mount, Vol.i. p.5 
sq. (Clark). 

2 This opinion, improbable as it is now commonly felt to be, was adopted by 
as good an interpreter as Calvin (Harm. Evang. Vol. i. p. 185, ed. Tholuck), and 
has been lately advanced in a slightly changed form by Neander, who attributes 
to the Greek editor (?) of St. Matthew the insertion of those expressions of our 
Lord which are found in other collocations in St. Luke’s Gospel. See Life of 
Christ, p. 241 (Bohn). There is nothing, however, unnatural in the supposition 
that our blessed Lord vouchsafed to use the same precepts on more occasions than 


Lect. IV. THE MINISTRY IN EASTERN GALILEE. 171 


of reconciliation proposed between the two forms of this 
Sermon vouchsafed to us by the Holy Ghost, two deserve 
consideration, — (a) that which represents St. Luke’s as a 
condensed recital of what St. Matthew has related more 
at length, and (0) that which attributes the condensation 
to our Lord Himself; who on the summit of the hill deliv- 
ered the longer, but, as it has been doubtfully termed, eso- 
teric sermon to His Apostles, and perhaps disciples, and on 
the level piece of ground, a little distance below, delivered 
the shortened and more popular form to the mixed multi- 
tude.’ 

But let us now pass onward. On the Lord’s return to 
Capernaum, which it does not seem un- 
reasonable to suppose took place on the Me 4 
evening of the same day, the elders of the οὐκί 7awing of te 
synagogue of Capernaum meet our Lord 
with a petition from one who shared in the faith, though 
he was not of the lineage, of Abraham. This petition, and 
the way in which it was made, deserve a passing notice. 
We see, on the one hand, the different feelings with which 
as yet the leading party at Capernaum were animated, when 
contrasted with the emissaries from Jerusalem; and on the 
other we recognize the profound humility of the God-fear- 


one. Compare Matt. v.18 and Luke xii. 58, Matt. vi. 19—21 and Luke xii. 33, 
Matt. vi. 24 and Luke xvi. 18, Matt. vii. 13 and Luke xiii. 24, Matt. vii. 22 and 
Luke xiii. 25—27. 

1 Of these two opinions, the second, though noticed with some approval by 
Augustine (de Consensu Evang. 11. 19), and convenient for reconciling the slight 
differences as to locality and audience which appear in the records of the two 
Evangelists (see Lange, Leben Jesu, 11. 4. 12, Part 11. p. 568 sq.), has so much the 
appearance of having been formed simply to reconcile these differences, and 
involves so much that is unlikely, and indeed unnatural, that we can hardly 
hesitate to adopt the first; so too, as it would seem, Augustine, loc. cit. ad fin. 
Comp. Trench, Expos. of Serm. on Mount, p. 160 (ed. 2). A fair comparison of 
the two inspired records seems to confirm this judgment, and satisfactorily to 
show that St. Luke’s record is here a compendium, or rather selection, of the 
leading precepts which appear in that of St. Matthew. No extract, it may be 
observed, is made from ch. vi. (Matt.), as the duties there specified (almsgiving, 
prayer, fasting, etc.) are mainly considered in reference to their due performance 
in the sight of God, while St. Luke appears to have been moved to specify those 
which relate more directly to our neighbor. For further notices and comments, 
see Tholuck, Serm. on Mount, Vol. i. p. 1 sq. (Clark). 


172 THE MINISTRY IN EASTERN GALILEE. Lecv. IV. 


ing soldier who, it would seem from St. Luke’s account, 
twice preferred his petition by the mouths 
of others, before he presumed himself to 
speak in behalf of his suffering servant. Then followed, 
probably from his own lips, words of faith that moved the 
wonder of our Lord Himself, and forthwith came the 
reward of that faith, — the healing of apparently the first 
Gentile sufferer... But the morrow was to see yet greater 
things; for, as St. Luke tells us, on the fol- 
lowing day, during the course of a short ex- 
cursion into the vale of Esdraelon, the Lord of life comes 
into first conflict with the powers of death. At the brow 
of that steep ascent, up which the modern traveller to the 
hamlet of (Vain has still to pass,” the Saviour, begirt with 
a numerous company of His disciples and a large attendant 
multitude, beholds a sad and pity-moving 
sight. The only son of a widow was being 
borne out to his last resting-place, followed by the poor, 
weeping mother, and a large and, as it would seem, sym- 
pathizing crowd. But there was one now 
nigh at hand who no sooner beheld than He 
pitied, and with whom to pity was to bless. 
The words of power were uttered, the dead at once rose up 

ἘΝ to life and speech, and was given to the 

Ver. 15. widow’s arms, while the amazed multitude 

ate glorified God, and welcomed as a mighty 
prophet Him who had done before their eyes what their 
memories might have connected with the greatest of the 


Ch. vii. 3, 6. 


Ch. vii. 11 sq. 


Luke vii. 11. 


Ver. 12. 
Ver. 13. 


1 For comments on this miracle, one of the characteristics of which is, that, 
as in the case of the nobleman’s son, our Lord youchsafed the cure without see- 
ing or visiting the sufferer, see Bp. Hall, Contempl. 11. 6, Trench, Miracles, p. 
222, and compare Lange, Leben Jesu, τι. 4. 18, Part 11. p. 645 sq. 

2 See Stanley, Sinai and Palestine, ch. 1x. 852 (ed. 2). The Dutch traveller 
Van de Velde remarks that the rock on the west side of Nain is full of sepulchral 
caves, and infers from this that our Lord approached Nain on the western side. 
Syria and Palestine, Vol. ii. p. 882. A sketch of the wretched-looking but 
finely situated hamlet that still bears the name of Nain or Nein (Robinson, 
Palest. Vol. ii. p. 361) will be found in Thomson, Zhe Land and the Book, Vol. 
11. p. 159. 


Leot. IV. THE MINISTRY IN EASTERN GALILEE. 173 


prophets of the past. It is here perhaps, or at one of the 
towns in the neighborhood, that we are to fix the memo- 
rable and affecting scene at the house of 
Simon the Pharisee, when the poor sinful 
woman pressed unbidden among the guests to anoint, not 
the head, like the pure Mary of Bethany, but 
the feet of the Virgin’s Son, and whose 
passionate repentance and special and preéminent faith 
were blessed with acceptance and pardon.’ Bye 

It is about the same time, too, and, as me Baptisrsmes- 
appears by no means improbable, but a very “° ¥™ar 
few days before the tragical end of their Master’s life,* that 
the two disciples of John the Baptist come to our Lord 
with the formal question which the, so to say, dying man 
commissioned them to ask, — whether the great Healer, 
the fame of whose deeds had penetrated into 
the dungeons of Macherus, were truly He 
that was to come, or whether another were 
yet to be expected. The exact purpose of this mission 


Ver. 36. 


Ver. 88. 


Matt. xi. 3. 
Luke vii. 19. 


1 For ‘some further comments on this miracle, see Cyril Alex. on St. Luke, 
Serm. xxxvr. Part 1. p. 182 sq. (Transl.), Bp. Hall, Contempl. τι. 1, and Trench, 
Notes on the Miracies, Ὁ. 239. Compare also Augustine, Serm. xovit1. Vol. v. 
p. 591 sq. fed. Migné), and Lange, Leben Jesu, 11. 4. 16, Part 11. p. 740 sq. 

2 With regard to this anointing of our Lord, we may briefly remark, (α) that it 
eertainly is not identical with that which is specified by the other three Evangel- 
ists (Matt. xxvi. 6 sq., Mark xiv. 8 sq., John xii. 1 sq.). Everything is different, 
—the time, the place, the chief actor, and the circumstances. See Meyer, on 
Matt. xxvi. 6, p. 483, and Lange, Leben Jesu, 11. 4. 16, Part 11. p. 736. We may 
further remark (Ὁ) that there seems no just ground for identifying the repentant 
sinner here mentioned with Mary Magdalene, who, though a victim to Satanic 
influence, and that too in a fearful and aggravated form (Luke viii. 2), is not 
necessarily to.be considered guilty of sins of impurity. Nay, more, the very 
description of the affliction of Mary Magdalene seems in itself sufficient to dis- 
tinguish her from one whom no hint of the Evangelist leads us to suppose was 
then or formerly had been a demoniac. The contrary opinion has been firmly 
maintained by Sepp (Leben Christi, 111. 28, Vol. ii. p. 285), but on the authority 
of Rabbinical traditions, which are curious rather than convincing. On the 
incident generally, see Greg. M.Hom. in Evang. xxxi11., Augustine, Serm. XCIXx., 
and especially Bp. Hall, Contempl. 1v. 17. 

8 The most probable period to which the murder of the Baptist is to be 
assigned would seem to be the week preceding the Passover of the second year 
of our Lord’s ministry, April 10—17, a.u.c. 782. For the arguments on which 
this rests, consult Wieseler, Chron. Synops. p. 292 sq., and see below, p. 183, 
note 3. 


15* 


174 THE MINISTRY IN EASTERN GALILEE. Lect. IV. 


will perhaps remain to the end of time a subject of contro- 
versy,' but it has ever been fairly, and, as it would seem, 
convincingly urged, that He whose eyes, scarce sixteen 
months before, had beheld the descending Spirit, whose 
ears had heard the voice of paternal love and benediction, 
and who now again had but recently been told of acts of 
omnipotent power, could himself have never really doubted 
the truth of his own declaration,’ that this was indeed 
“the Lamb of God that taketh away the 
sin of the world.” ) 
Almost immediately after the marvellous scene at Nain, 
our Lord, accompanied not only by His twelve 
τα Apostles, but, as it is specially recorded, by 
Pharisees. =. pious and grateful women, chief among 
whom stands the miraculously healed Mary 
of Magdala, passed onward from city to city and village to 
village, preaching the kingdom of God. That circuit could 
not have lasted much above a day or two after the miracle 
at Nain,’ and, as the words of the second Evangelist seem 


John i. 20. 


1 The three different states of feeling (doubt, impatience, desire to convince his 
disciples) which have been attributed to the Baptist, as having given rise to this 
mission, are noticed and commented on by Ebrard, Kritik der Evang. Gesch. 
§ 73, p. 867 sq. For a full discussion of the subject, however, see the calm and 
learned comments of Jackson, on the Creed, Vol. vi. p. 8310 sq. Comp. also, but 
with caution, Lange, Leben Jesu, 11. 4. 17, Part 11. p. 745 sq. 

2 The utmost that can be said is, that the Baptist required the comfort of accu- 
mulated conviction (see Jackson, Creed, Vol. vi. p. 314); that he entertained 
distrust, or wavered in faith in these last days of his life, seems wholly incred- 
ible. To convince his disciples (Cyril Alex. in loc.) fully and completely before 
his death, was the primary object of the mission; to derive some incidental com- 
forts from the answer he foresaw they would return with, may possibly have 
been the secondary object. 

8 It has been already observed (p. 160, note 2), that the villages, and even towns, 
were 850. numerous in some parts of Galilee, that the words of the Evangelist 
(διώδευεν κατὰ πόλιν καὶ κώμην κηρύσσων, Luke viii. 1) need not be pressed as 
necessarily implying a lengthened circuit. It may be indeed doubted whether 
these notices of circuits, which it is confessedly very difficult to reconcile with 
other notes of time, may not be general descriptions of our Lord’s ministry at 
the time rather than special notices of special journeys. That the circuit had a 
homeward direction and terminated at Capernaum, we gather from Matt. xiii. 1, 
which, in specifying the place (παρὰ τὴν SdAacoay), marks the day as the same 
with that on which the visit of our Lord’s mother and brethren took place, and 
so connects us with Mark iii. 19 sq., which seems to refer to the return from the 
circuit (Luke viii. 1 sq.) which we are now considering. 


Lect.IV. THE MINISTRY IN EASTERN GALILEE. 175 


to imply, terminated at Capernaum, which, as we already 
know, had now become our Lord’s temporary home. On 
their return two parties anxiously awaited them; on the 
one hand the multitude, which, St. Mark tells 

us, gathered so hastily round the yet unrested 

company, that either the disciples, or, as seems more prob- 
able from the sequel, the mother and brethren 
of our Lord, deemed themselves called upon 
to interpose,' and to plead against what they could not but 
deem an almost inconsiderate enthusiasm. On 

the other hand, we still find there the hostile 

party of Scribes and Pharisees from Jerusalem, whom we 
have already noticed, and whoyet lingered, though the Pass- 
over was so nigh, in hopes that they might find further and 
more definite grounds of accusation. An opportunity, if 
not for preferring a charge, yet for attempting to check the 
growing belief of the amazed multitude, and 
for enlisting the worst feelings against the 
very acts of mercy which our Lord vouchsafed to perform, 
soon presented itself at the miraculous cure of a blind and 
dumb demoniac, which appears to belong to this portion 
of the sacred narrative.2 Then was it that the embittered 
hatred of these prejudiced and hardened men showed 


Ch. ti. 20. 


See ch. tii. 31 sq. 


Hark iii. 21. 


Natt. xii. 23. 


1 A little difficulty has been felt (a) in the exact reference of the words οἱ παρ᾽ 
αὐτοῦ (Mark iii. 21), and (b) in the fact that St. Luke places the visit of our 
Lord’s mother and brethren after the delivery of the parables rather than before 
them. With regard to the first point, of παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ seems clearly to imply, not 
the Apostles, but our Lord’s relatives (“‘ propinqui 6185," -- Syr.), who are noticed 
here as going forth (probably from some temporary abode at Capernaum; see p. 
152, note 1), and a few verses later (Mark iii. 31) as having now arrived at the 
house where our Lord then was. With regard to (6), it seems enough to say that 
St. Luke clearly agrees with St. Matthew in placing the event in question on the 
same day, but from having here omitted the discourse which preceded the arrival 
(Mark iii. 22 sq.), he mentions it a little out of its true chronological order, to 
prevent its being referred to some one of the towns on the circuit, and to con- 
nect it with the right place and time, — Capernaum, and the day of the return. 

2 There seems reason for placing the narrative of the healing of the demoniac, 
recorded in Matt. xii. 22 sq., between Mark iii. 21 and Mark iii. 22, as the sub- 
stance of the words which follow in both Gospels are so clearly alike, and as the 
narrative of the miracle in St. Matthew follows-that of other miracles which 
certainly appear to belong to a period shortly preceding the one now under 
consideration. 


176 THE MINISTRY IN EASTERN GALILEE. Lect. IV. 


itself in the frightful blasphemy — repeated, it would 
seem, more than once! — that attributed the wonder-work- 
ing power of the eternal Son of God to the 
energy of Satan; and then too was it that 
our Lord called them to Him, and mercifully 
revealed to them the appalling nature of their sin, which 
was now fast approaching the fearful climax of sin against 
the Holy Ghost, — that sin for which there was no forgive- 
d jon, δ ness,” “neither in this world, neither in that 
The teaching ὃν Which is to come.” The afternoon or early 
parables. = 
evening of that day was spent by the shores 
of the lake. The eager multitude, augmented by others 
who had come in from the neighboring 
towns, had now become so large, that, as it 
would seem, for the sake of more conveniently addressing 
them, our Lord was pleased to go on board one of the 
fishing vessels, and thence, with the multitude before 
Him, and with His divine eyes perchance resting on some 
one of those patches of varied and undulating corn-field 
which modern travellers have noticed as in some cases on 
the very margin of the lake,>— with the earthly and the 
heavenly harvest-field thus alike before Him, — He deliv- 


Matt. xii. 24. 
Mark iii. 23. 


Luke viii. 4. 


1 Compare Luke xi. 17 sq., where we meet with, in what seems clearly a later 
portion of the history, the same impious declaration on the part of the Pharisees 
which St. Mark (ch. iii. 22 sq.) and apparently St. Matthew (ch. xii. 24) refer to 
the present place. That such statements should have been made more than once, 
when suggested by similar miracles, is every way natural and probable. Comp. 
Matt. ix. 34 and xii. 22 sq., and see Wieseler, Chron. Synops. p. 287 sq. 

2 On this highest and most frightful enhancement of sin in the individual, of 
which the essential characteristic appears to be an outward expression (see 
Waterland) of an inward hatred of that which is recognized and felt to be 
divine, and the irremissible nature of which depends, not on the refusal of grace, 
but on the now lost ability of fulfilling the conditions required for forgiveness, 
see the able remarks of Miiller, Doctrine of Sin, Book v. Vol. 11. p. 475 (Clark), 
and the good sermon of Waterland, Serm. xxviu. Vol. vy. p. 707. For further 
comments on this profound subject, see Augustine, Serm. LXxI. Vol. v. p. 445 sq. 
(ed. Migné), the special work on the subject by Schaff (Halle, 1841), and the arti- 
cle by Tholuck, in the Studien wu. Kritiken tor 1826, compared with the earlier 
articles in the same periodical by Grashoff (1838) and Gurlitt (1884). 

8 See the interesting and illustrative remarks of Stanley, Sinai and Palestine, 
ch. XII. p. 421 sq.; and, in reference to the parable, compare the elucidations, 
from local observation, of Thomson, The Land and the Book, Vol. i. p. 116 sq. 


Lect. IV. THE MINISTRY IN EASTERN GALILEE. 177 


ered to that listening concourse the wondrous series of 
parables beginning with that appropriately chosen subject, 
specified alike by all the three Synoptical Evangelists, — 
the Sower and the seed." 

And now, as St. Mark specifies, the evening had come, 
and after that long and exhausting day the ei 
Holy One needed retirement and repose, and across anit ee 
nowhere could it be more readily obtained “ΛΠ 

Mark iv. 35. 

than in the solitudes of the eastern shore. 
The multitudes still linger; but τὰς Apostles bear away 
their wearied Master, “as He was,” says the itech St. 
Mark, in the vessel from which He had been 
preaching. As they sail the Lord slumbers; 
when from one of the deep clefts of the surrounding hills? 
a storm of wind bursts upon the lake, and 


Ver. 36. 


. - Luke viii. 23. 
the stirred-up waters beat in upon the boat. prog 
δ in le ν ark iv. 87. 
Terror-stricken, the disciples awake their 
Ἷ . Matt. xii. 22. 
sleeping Master, and He, who only a few per 


hours before had driven forth devils, now 
quells by His word the lesser potencies of wind and storm.’ 
When they reached the opposite side, which might have 


1 On the connection of the parables, of which this forms the first, see Lect. 1. 
p. 85, note 3. 

2 “ΤῸ understand,” says Dr. Thomson, who himself witnessed on the very 
spot astorm of similar violence, and that lasted as long as three days, ‘‘ the causes 
of these sudden and violent tempets, we must remember that the lake lies low 
[hence κατέβη λαῖλαψ, Luke viii. 23], six hundred feet lower than the ocean; 
that the vast and naked plateaus of Jaulan rise to a great height, spreading back- 
ward to the wilds of the Hauran, and upward to snowy Hermon; that the water- 
courses have cut out profound ravines and wild gorges, converging to the head 
of this lake, and that these act like gigantic funnels to draw down the winds 
from the mountains.’ — The Land and the Book, Vol. iii. pp. 32, 33. See also 
Ritter, Hrdkunde, Part xv. 1, p. 308 sq., where the peculiar nature of these 
storm-winds is briefly noticed. 

ὃ For further comments on this miracle, one of the more striking features of 
which is the Saviour’s rebuke to the warring elements, the very words of which, 
as addressed to the storm-tost waters (καὶ εἶπε TH ϑαλάσσῃ, Σιώπα, πεφίμωσο, 
Mark iv. 39), have been specially recorded by the second Evangelist,—see the 
expository remarks of Chrysostom, in Matt. Hom. xxvit., the typical and 
practical application of Augustine, Serm. Lx111. (ed. Migné), Trench, Notes on 
the Miracles, p. 148, sq.,and compare Hook, Serm. on the Miracles, Vol. i. p. 
207 sq. 


178 THE MINISTRY IN EASTERN GALILEE. Lect. IV. 


been late that evening, or more probably studiously de- 

layed till the dawn of the following day, our 
ema Gervene Lord had no sooner gone out of the vessel 

than He was met by the hapless Gergesene? 
demoniac or demoniacs,? whose home was in the tombs, 

that can still be traced in more than one of 

the ravines that open out upon the lake 
on its eastern side.2 There, and in the solitudes of the 
desert mountains behind, dwelt the wretched and, as it 
would seem, sinful man, who by his Lord’s own 
divine command was hereafter to be Christ’s 
first preacher in his own household, and who 
told abroad the blessings he had received 
through the surrounding land of Decapolis. How he 


Mark v. 3. 


Luke viii. 89, 


Mark v. 20. 


1 Whether the true reading in Matt. viii. 28 be Tepyeonvay, Tadapnvav, or 
Tepaonva@y, is a question which cannot easily be answered. On the whole, how- 
ever, if we assign due weight not only to the evidence of manuscripts but also 
to recent geographical discovery, we shall, perhaps, be led to adopt the first 
reading in St. Matthew and the second in St. Mark and St. Luke. The grounds 
on which this decision rests are as follows: (1) The amount of external evidence 
in favor of Γεργεσηνῶν in Matt. viii. 28 (see Tischendorf in loc.) is much too 
great to be due solely to the correction of Origen; (2) Origen plainly tells us that 
there was a place in his time so named, and that the exact site of the miracle 
was pointed out to that day; (8) ruins have been recently discovered by Dr. 
Thomson in Wady Semak, still bearing the name of Kerza or Gerza, which are 
pronounced to fulfil every requirement of the narrative. See, especially, The 
Land and the Book, Vol. ii. p. 88 sq., and compare Van de Velde, Memoir to 
Map, p. 811. The probable reading in St. Mark and St. Luke (Γαδαρηνῶν) may 
be accounted for by supposing that they were content with indicating generally 
the scene of the miracle, while St. Matthew, whose knowledge of the shores of 
the lake whereon he was collector of dues would naturally be precise, specifies 
the exact spot. 

2 Of the current explanations of the seeming difficulty that St. Matthew 
names ¢wo and St. Mark and St. Luke one demoniac, that of Chrysostom (in 
loc.) and Augustine (de Consensu Evang. 11. 24) seems most satisfactory, viz. that 
one of the demoniacs took so entirely the prominent part as to cause two of the 
. narrators to omit all mention of his companion. We have no reason for 
inferring from St. Matthew that the second of the sufferers did more than join 
in the opening cry of deprecation. See Matt. viii. 29. 

8 See Thomson, The Land and the Book, Vol. ii. p. 85. Tombs have also been 
observed in Wady Fik on the side of the road leading up from the Jake (Stan- 
ley, Palestine, ch. x. p. 876), the position of which has perhaps led to that 
rayine being usually selected as the scene of the miracle; if, however, the above 
identification of Γέργεσα and Gerza be accepted, the scene of the miracle must 
be transferred to the more northern Wady Semak. 


Lect. ΠΥ. THE MINISTRY IN EASTERN GALILEE. 179 


was healed, the astonishing and most convincing way in 
which every line of the narrative sets before us the awful 
kind of double or rather manifold personality, 
the kneeling man of the one moment and the 
shouting demoniac of the next, the startling 
yet all-wise permission given to the devils,! and the over- 
powered instinct of self-preservation in the possessed 
swine,—all this our present limits preclude me from 
pausing fully to delineate; but this one comment I will 
venture to make, that with this miracle before us, with 
expressions so unqualified, and terms so distinct, a denial 
of the reality of demoniacal possession on the part of 
any one who believes the Gospel narrative to be true and 
inspired, may justly be regarded as simply and plainly 
inconceivable.” 

On the Lord’s return to the western side,  Τῇῆδ raising of 

. . . . Jairus’ daughter. 
which took place immediately in consequence 
of the request of the terror-stricken inhab- 
itants of the neighboring city, He found the multitude 


Ver. 9. 
Ver. 6. 


Matt. viii. 34. 


1 On this much debated subject we may briefly observe, (a) that the permission 
to enter into the herd of swine may have been deemed necessary by our Lord 
(πολλὰ évTevsev οἰκονομῶν, Chrys.) to convince the sufferer of his cure (Chrys. 
I.); (δ) that it may also stand in connection with some unknown laws of demo- 
niacal possession generally, and more particularly with that which the demons 
dreaded, deprecated, and perhaps foresaw,—a return to the abyss (Luke viii. 
81). It may be that to defer that return they ask to be suffered to enter into 
fresh objects in that district to which they mysteriously clung (Mark v. 10), and 
it may be too that the very permitted entry, by destroying the instinct of self- 
preservation in the swine, brought about, even in a more ruinous way, the issue 
they so much dreaded. That this was (c) further designed to punish the people 
for keeping swine is not perfectly clear, as the inhabitants of those parts were 
mainly Gentile. Compare Joseph. Antig. xv11. 11.4. The supposition that the 
swine were driven down the precipice by the demoniacs (Kuinoel, followed by 
Milman, Hist. of Christianity, Vol. i. p. 288) is not only in the highest degree 
improbable, but wholly at variance with the express statements of the inspired 
writers. 

2 For some good remarks on this subject, see Olshausen, Commentary, Vol. i. 
p. 305 sq. (Clark), Trench, Notes on the Miracles, p. 151 sq., Alford on Matt. viii. 
82, and compare Kitto, Journal of Sacr. Lit. No. vii. p. 1 sq., No. xI1v. p. 394 sq. 
In addition to these, on the miracle generally, see Chrysostom on Matt. Hom. 
XXVII., the good comments of Maldonatus on Matt. 1. c., Bp. Hall, Contempl. 
111. 5, and compare Jones of Nayland, Works, Vol. v. p. 72 sq., and Bp. Wilber- 
force, Serm. p. 107. 


180 THE MINISTRY IN EASTERN GALILEE. Lect. IV. 


eagerly waiting to receive Him, and among them one anx- 
ious and heart-stricken man, Jairus, whose 
daughter lay dying, and who besought our 
Lord with all the passion of a father’s love to save his 
child. But the crowd hung round the Lord, 
and the case of the suffering woman, who 
touched her Saviour’s garments with the 
touch of faith, added to the delay, and the daughter of 
the ruler of the synagogue had breathed her last before 
the Lord could reach the father’s house ;? so 
Τρ, they tell Him that all was over. But now 
was the glory of God to be revealed. Yet 
again a second time —as once on the bier, so now on the 
bed — did the Lord loose the bands of death; with how- 
ever this very striking and peculiar difference, that what 
a few days before was. done in the sight of 
all Nain, was here done in strict privacy, with 
three chosen Apostles and the father and mother alone 
present, and with the special and urgent 
command to those present not to raise the 
veil of the solemn scene they had been permitted to 
witness.® 


Luke viii. 40. 


Ver. 42. 
Ver. 43 sq. 


Ch. vii. 11. 


Mark v. 48. 


/ 


1 On this miracle, the characteristics of which are the great faith of the sufferer, 
and the indirect though not unconscious performance of the cure, see Hall, 
Contempl. ΤΥ. 7, Trench, Notes on the Miracles, p. 189 sq., Hook, Serm. on the 
Miracles, Vol. i. p. 242 sq.; and compare Lange, Leben Jesu, tv. 4. 14, Part 11. 
Ρ. 681. 

2 The slight difference between the narrative of St. Matthew, in which the 
father speaks of his daughter as now dead (ch. ix. 18), and that of St. Mark, 
where he speaks of her as being at the last gasp (ch. v. 28), has been accounted 
for most reasonably by Augustine (de Concens. Evang. 11. 2), Theophylact (1st 
alternative), and others, by the supposition that Jairus spoke from what his 
fears suggested, and that he regarded the death of his daughter as by that time 
having actually taken place. Comp. Greswell, Dissert. 111. Vol. i. p. 217. 

3 This command, which Meyer (on Mark ν. 48) most rashly considers a mere 
unauthorized addition of Jater tradition, is perfectly in harmony with the pri- 
vate manner in which the miracle was performed, The reason why it was given 
can, however, only be conjectured. It can scarcely have been on account of the 
Jews (διὰ τὸν φϑόνον τάχα τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων, Theophy]. on Luke viii. 56), but may 
very probably have been suggested by a desire to avoid undue publicity, and 
perhaps also by merciful considerations of what the Lord knew to be best for 
the maiden and her relatives. Compare Olshausen, Commentary on Gospels, 


Lect. ITV. THE MINISTRY IN EASTERN GALILEE. 181 


Soon after this, perhaps on the same day, our Lord, 
accompanied by His disciples, leaves Caper- ies cle ἐς 
naum, and on the Sabbath which immediately τὸ the synagogue at 
followed again appeared in the synagogue at ἜΘΕΙ: 

His own town of Nazareth... The feeling there is now 
in some degree better than it was three 
weeks before. The fame that spread all 
through Galilee had produced some effect even at Naza- 
reth, and had disposed them to give ear a second time to 
Him whose wisdom and even miraculous 

powers they were forced to recognize and 

to confess. But the inward heart of the men of Nazareth 
was unchanged as ever. Though there was now no longer 
that open indignation and murderous rage 
that was so frightfully manifested at the 
former visit, there was a similar vexed spirit of amaze- 
ment and incredulity, and a similar and even more scorn- 
fully worded appeal to family connections of low estate, 
and to kindred that had long lived humbly among them: 
“Ts not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and the brother 
of James and Joses and Judas and Simon?” 

It is now, however, offence rather than posi- 

tive rejection, — yet offence that sprang from a deep heart 
of unbelief, which stayed the Saviour’s heal- 
ing hands, and made Him, who knew full 
well what it was to meet with rejection and want of faith, 
to marvel at the exceeding measures of Naz- 
arene unbelief. On the eve of that day, or 
more probably early on the morrow, our Lord appears to 


Luke iv. 16 sq. 


Hark vi. 2. 


Ver. 28, 


Mark vi. 3. 


Matt. xiii. 58. 


Mark. vi. 6. 


Vol. i. p. 276 (Clark). On the miracle itself see the good comments of Chrysost. 
in Matt. Hom. xxx1., Bp. Hall, Contempl. 1v. 8, Lardner’s vindication, Works, 
Vol. xi. p. 1 sq., Trench, Notes on the Miracles, p.179, and Lange, Leben Jesu, 
11. 4. 14, Part 11. p. 683 sq. 

1 That this visit to Nazareth is not identical with that recorded by St. Luke 
(ch. iv. 16) is rightly maintained by Meyer, on Matt. xiii. 54. The only argument 
for the identity is our Lord’s use of the same proverb on both occasions; but is 
there anything strange in such a repetition, especially when the conduct of the 
people of Nazareth on each occasion rendered such a proverb most mournfully 
pertinent? See Wieseler, Chron. Synops. p. 284 sq. 


16 


189 THE MINISTRY IN EASTERN GALILEE. Lect. IV. 


have commenced a short circuit of Galilee, but, as we 

must conclude from our general notes of 

The sending δ, . . : 

forth of the Twelwe time, in the direction of Capernaum; and at 
oar this same time also it would certainly appear 
that He sent forth the twelve Apostles (who we know 
accompanied Him to Nazareth), by two and 
two, probably in different directions, and 
perhaps with an order, after having made a brief trial 
of the powers with which they had been 
intrusted, to join their Master at Caper- 
naum. Thither they must have returned, it would seem, 
not more than two days afterwards.? Such a statement 
may at first seem startling. It may be urged that so short 
an absence on the part of the Apostles is hardly compat- 
ible with the instructions given to them by our Lord, as 
recorded by the first Evangelist, wherein 
distant’ and continued journeyings would 
seem rather to be contemplated than the limited circuit 
which our present chronology suggests.’ The objection is 


Mark vi. 6. 


Mark vi. 12. 


Matt. x. 5 sq. 


1 The Sabbath on which our Lord preached at Nazareth would certainly seem 
to be the Sabbath which succeeded the σάββατον δευτερόπρωτον (Luke vi. 1), 
and consequently, according to our explanation of the latter term, the second 
Sabbath of Nisan. Now if we turn to our tables (Wieseler, Chron. Synops. p. 
484), we find that our present Sabbath answers to Nisan 18, and therefore must 
conclude that both our Lord and His Apostles returned to Capernaum from 
their respective missionary journeys on the following day, there being good 
reason for fixing the feeding of the five thousand on the Passover-eve, Nisan 
14. See below, and compare John vi. 4. Such a result can hardly be conceived 
natural. The difficulty, however, may be in some degree removed by taking 
into consideration the fact that the first day of the Jewish month was fixed by 
observation, and that the day of the Julian calendar with which it agrees can 
hardly be determined with perfect certainty. In the case of Nisan 1 in the pres- 
ent year, the correct time of new moon was about seven o’clock in the evening 
of April 2; the new moon would then probably be observed on the evening of 
April 4 (see Wieseler, Chron. Synops. p. 446). But the Jewish day begins after six 
o’clock; Nisan 1 would then begin on April 4, but really coincide with April 5, 
and not with April 4, as Wieseler and Wurm suppose. The date of our present 
Sabbath would then be Nisan 12, and not Nisan 11, and we should have two 
whole days for the absence of the Apostles, a time not improbably short. See 
below. Such niceties and difficulties may well teach us caution, and may justly 
make us very diffident as to our ability to assign each event in this portion of the 
sacred narrative to the true day on which it occurred. 

2 See the preceding note. 

8 Another objection may perhaps be founded on the declaration of St. Mark 


Lect. IV. THE MINISTRY IN EASTERN GALILEE. 183 


certainly not without force, and is useful in warning us not 
to be too confident either on the construction of our chro- 
nological tables, or in the correctness of our collocation of 
individual events. Still, when we consider, — First, that 
it is far from improbable that St. Matthew has incorporated 
in this address to the Apostles instructions given to them 
by our Lord at other periods of His ministry ;* Secondly, 
that the address, whether in its longer or its shorter form, 
may reasonably be supposed to extend far 
beyond the present time, and to refer to 
periods of missionary labor as yet still distant; Thirdly, 
that it does not seem probable that our Lord would have 
long dispensed with the attendance of those to whom His 
blessed presence was so vital and so essential,” — when we 
consider all these points, it will perhaps seem less improb- 
able that this first missionary journey was but short, and 
that the Apostles returned to Capernaum as early as the 
evening of the second day. The return was nearly, it 
would seem, contemporaneous with the arrival of the 
tidings of the Baptist’s murder ;* and it was, perhaps, partly 


Comp. Matt. x, 23. 


that our Lord ““ went round about the villages, teaching ” (ch. vi. 6; comp. Matt. 
ix. 85). This is also of some weight, but as we find no special note of time serv- 
ing to define it as subsequent to the visit to Nazareth, and prior to the sending 
forth of the Twelve, we may perhaps justly and correctly regard it either (@) as 
serving only to mark that our Lord’s ministry was continuous, that He did not 
remain at Nazareth, but was extending His blessings to other places; or, still 
more simply, (Ὁ) as merely specifying the work in which our Lord was then 
engaged, and as preparing the reader for a transition to other subjects (ver. 
7—29). See above, p. 174, note 3. 

1 When we remember that St. Matthew does not notice the sending forth of 
the Seventy, and, further, when we compare the instructions delivered to them, 
as recorded by St. Luke (ch. x. ii), with those which are here recorded by St. 
Matthew, as delivered to the Twelve (ch. x. 2 sq.), it seems hard to resist the con- 
viction that as the first Evangelist was moved in the preceding chapters to group 
miracles together, so in the present case he is presenting in a collected form all 
our Lord’s instructions on the subject of missionary duties and labors generally. 
See a comparison of the parallei passages in Wieseler, Chron. Synops. p. 303. 

2 Τὸ is right to remember that the formal appointment of the Twelve can 
scarcely be placed further back than a week or ten days from the present time. 
Some of the number, we know, had been already long enough with our Lord as 
disciples for us to conceive that they might have been enabled to teach and 
preach for some time without being sustained by His presence, but this can 
hardly be felt in reference to all the Apostles. 

3 It seems probable that the death of the Baptist took place somewhere about 


184 THE MINISTRY IN EASTERN GALILEE. Lect. IV. 


on this account, and partly for the sake of communing in 

ina bah stillness with His chosen ones after their first. 
13. missionary efforts, that our Lord thought it 
meet to avoid the many comers and goers 
which a time so close to the Passover would 
be sure to set in motion, and to seek rest 
and privacy by retiring with His Apostles to the solitudes 
of the further side of the lake. 

But rest and privacy were not to be obtained. A very 
short time, especially when we remember the 
probable vicinity of the city of Bethsaida- 
Julias,' and the numbers that might now have 
been moving about the country, would have served to have 
brought the five thousand round our Lord; and there, on 
the green table-lands on the northeastern corner of the 
lake, or amid the “green grass” of the rich 
plain near the mouth of the Jordan,” must 
we place the memorable scene of the miraculous feeding of 

that vast multitude. Memorable indeed,— 
memorable for the display of the creative 
power of the eternal Son that was then made before more 


Mark vi. 31. 


Ver. 31. 


The feeding of 
the five thousand. 


Mark vi. 89. 


Matt. xiv. 21. 


a week before the time now under consideration. See Wieseler, Chron. Synops. 
p. 292sq. Much, however, turns on the meaning assigned to the term γενέσια 
(Matt. xiv. 6, Mark vi. 21). If it refers to the festival in honor of the birthday of 
Herod Antipas (Meyer), no precise date for the murder of the Baptist can be 
obtained from this portion of the narrative; if, however, as seems not unlikely, 
it refers to the festival in honor of the commencement of Herod's reign, then an 
approximately close date can easily be arrived at, as Herod the Great, whom 
Herod Antipas succeeded in the government of Galilee (Joseph. Antig. xvi. 8. 
1), is known to have died a few days before the Passover, A. U.c. 750. See Lect. 
11. p. 81, note 1. 

1 This appears to have been a place of some size and importance. It was trans- 
formed by Philip from a mere village into a populous and handsome town (see 
Joseph. Antig. xvu11. 2.1), of which some traces are thought to have been found 
on some rising ground on the east side of the Jordan and not far from the head 
of the lake. See Robinson, Palestine, Vol. ii. p. 418, Thomson, The Land and 
the Book, Vol. ii. p. 9, and compare Winer, RWB. Vol. ii. p. 174. 

2 See Stanley, Palestine, ch. x. p. 877, and especially Thomson, The Land and 
the Book, Vol. ii. p. 29, where it is stated that the exact site of the miracle may 
almost confidently be identified. For a confutation of the rashly advanced 
opinion that St. Luke places the scene of the miracle on the western shore (De 
Wette, comp, Winer, 2 WB. Vol. i. p. 175), see Meyer on Luke ix. 10. 


71ποτ. 1. THE MINISTRY IN EASTERN GALILEE. 185 


than five thousand witnesses; memorable too for the 
strange coincidence that on the very eve that the Paschal 
lambs were being offered up in the temple-courts of Jeru- 
salem, the eternal Lamb of God was feeding His people in 
the wilderness with the bread which His own divine hands 
had multiplied !* 

And now I must draw these words and this portion of 
our Master’s life at once to a close, yet not 
without the prayer that this effort to set | Conmigo re 
forth the narrative of a most solemn and 
eventful period —the period of the Lord’s founding His 
Church — may be blessed by His Spirit. To be confident 
of the accuracy of details, either of time or place, where 
not only the connection of individual events, but the ar- 
rangement of the whole period, is a matter of the utmost 
doubt and difficulty, would indeed argue a rash and self- 
satisfied spirit; yet this I will presume to say, that if certain 
chronological data and reasonings be approximately cor- 
rect, —and after manifold testings correct in the main I 
do verily believe them to be,—then the general picture 
can hardly be much otherwise than as it has been here 
sketched out. Be this however as it may, I count all as 
nought if only I have succeeded in the great object which 
these Lectures are intended to promote, if only, by pre- 
senting some sketches of the continued life of the Saviour, 
I may have been enabled to bring that Saviour nearer to 
one heart in this church. On that holy life, on all its 
divine harmonies, on all its holy mysteries, may we be 
moved more and more to dwell. By meditating on the 
inspired records may we daily acquire increasing measures 
of that fulness of conviction, to have which in its most 


1 On this miracle, which, as has been often observed, is the only one found in 
all the four Gospels, and which, when compared with the miracle of turning the 
water into wine (John ii. 1 sq.), shows our Lord’s creative powers in reference to 
quantity, as the latter does his transforming powers as to quality, see Origen, in 
Matt. xi. 1, Vol. iii. p. 476 sq. (ed Bened.), Augustine, in Joann. Tract. XXIV. 
Vol. iii. p. 1592 sq. (ed. Migné), Bp. Hall, Contempl. tv. 5, Trench, Notes on the 
Miracles, p. 261, and a good sermon by Mill, Univ. Serm. XVI. p. 301. 


16* 


180 THE MINISTRY IN EASTERN GALILEE. Lect. IV. 


complete proportions is to enjoy the greatest earthly 
blessing which the Lord has reserved for those that love 
Him. This is indeed to dwell with the Lord on earth ;} 
this is indeed to feel His spiritual presence around us and 
about us, and yet to feel, with no ascetic severity, but in 
sober truth, that we have here no abiding city, but that 
there, where He is, is our true and everlasting home; 
there, by the shores of that crystal sea, our 
en δ heavenly Gennesareth; there that new Jeru- 
Pek oe a salem, whose light is the light of the Lamb, 
—the “city which has foundations, whose 

builder and maker is God.” 


Rev, iv. 6. 


1 “ Do not then,” says the wise and eloquent Bp. Hall, ““ conceive of this union 
as some imaginary thing that hath no existence but in the brain, or as if it were 
merely an accidental or metaphorical union by way of figurative resemblance; 
but know that this is a real and substantial union, whereby the believer is indis- 
solubly united to the glorious person of the Son of God. Know that this union 
is not more mystical than certain, that in natural unions there may be more evi- 
dence but cannot be more truth. Neither is there so firm and close a union 
betwixt the soul and body as there is betwixt Christ and the believing sou); for- 
asmuch as that may be severed by death, but this cannot.’ — Christ Mystical, 
ch. 11. See above, Lect. 111. p. 142, note 2. 


LECTURE V. 


THE MINISTRY IN NORTHERN GALILEE. 


AND HE SAID UNTO THEM, I MUST PREACH THE KINGDOM OF GOD TO OTHER 
CITIES ALSO: FOR THEREFORE AM I SENT. — S¢é. Luke iv. 48. 


I wave chosen these words, brethren, which really belong 
to a slightly earlier period! than that which we are now 
about to consider, as nevertheless a very suitable text for 
that part of our Master’s history which will occupy our 
attention this afternoon. 

In the portion of the inspired narrative now before us, 
we have the brief yet deeply interesting | fu gay 
notices of more widely extended journeys οὗ this part of our 

: . Lord’s history. 
and more prolonged circuits. We find the 
clear traces of missionary travel to the west and to the 
east and to the north, and we read the holy record of deeds 
of mercy performed in remote regions, both of Galilee and 
the lands across the Jordan,’ which the Lord had not, as it 


1 The exact time when these words were uttered by our Lord was the morn- 
ing following the first Sabbath at Capernaum, when the amazed but grateful 
multitudes were pressing Him not to leave the place He had so greatly blessed. 
See Lect. Iv. p. 160. 

2 It has not been easy to select a single term which should correctly describe 
the principal scene of the ministerial labors of our Lord which come before us 
in this Lecture. The known geographical divisions of Upper and Lower Gali- 
lee (Joseph. Bell. Jud. 111. 8. 1) would naturally have suggested the adoption of 
the former term in reference to the present, and the latter in reference to the 
preceding portion of the sacred narrative, if it were not apparently an estab- 
lished fact that Capernaum belonged, not, as it might be thought, to Lower 
(Kitto, Bibl. Cycl. Art. ‘ Galilee,’ Vol. i. p. 727), but to Upper Galilee. Comp. 
Euseb. Onomast. Art. ‘* Capharnaum,” and Smith, Dict. of Bible, Art. ‘ Galilee,” 
Vol.i p. 646. The title above has thus been chosen, though it is confessedly not 
exact, as failing to include the districts across the Jordan, which, as will be seen 
from the narrative, were the scenes of some part of the ministry that we are 
now considering. 


188 THE MINISTRY IN NORTHERN GALILEE.  Lecr. V. 


would appear, yet blessed with his divine presence. Hitherto 
the plain of Gennesareth and the nearer portions of Galilee, 
“the land of Zabulon and the land of Neph- 
thalim,” had been almost exclusively blest 
with the glory of the great Light; now Pheenice and 
Decapolis were to behold its rays. Hitherto the lake of 
the east, “ the way of the sea beyond Jor- 
dan,” had been the chief theatre of the Re- 
deemer’s teaching and miracles; now even the coasts of 
Tyre and Sidon, and the great sea of the west, were to 
hear the tidings of salvation, yea, and to bear their witness 
to victories over the powers of that kingdom of darkness 
which had so long been seated on those heathen and idol- 
atrous shores. 
Such is the general character of the very remarkable 
portion of the sacred narrative on which we 
cial contrasts are now about to dwell. Remarkable is it 
for the glimpses it vouchsafes to us of the 
unwearied activities of our Lord’s ministerial life; remark- 
able for the notices it supplies to us of the extended 
spheres to which those holy energies were directed ;? re- 
markable too for the contrasted relations in which it stands 
to that portion of the Gospel history which claimed so 
much of our attention last Sunday. To these contrasts 
and characteristics let us devote a few preliminary thoughts. 
First, however, let us specify the limits of the section to 
aes, which we are about to confine our attention. 
limits of the present ‘These seem, almost at once, to suggest them- 
yn selves to the meditative reader, and serve to 
separate the evangelical narrative into simple and natural 


Matt. iv. 15. 


Ver, 15. 


1 The peculiar character of these distant missionary journeys of our Lord, and 
the considerable portion of time which they appear to have occupied, have been 
too much overlooked by modern writers of the Life of our Lord. Compare, for 
example, Hase, Leben Jesu, § 85, and even to some extent Lange, Leben Jesu, 11. 
5. 10, Part 11. p. 864, neither of whom seems properly to recognize the important 
place which these journeys really occupy in our Lord’s ministry. See below, p. 
189. Ewald, on the contrary, has correctly devoted a separate section to this 
portion of the Gospel history. See Gesch. Christus’, p. 831 sq. 


Τεστ.Υ. THE MINISTRY IN NORTHERN GALILEE. 189 


divisions. Our section, it will be remembered, commences 
with the events which immediately succeeded the feeding 
of the five thousand on the Passover eve,’ and naturally 
and appropriately concludes with the return of our Lord 
to Capernaum a very short time previous to His journey 
to Jerusalem at the feast of Tabernacles, towards the mid- 
dle of October. We have thus as nearly as possible a 
period of six months;? a period bounded by two great 
festivals, and, as I have already said, marked off from the 
preceding portion of our Lord’s history by some striking 
contrasts and characteristics. On these let us briefly pause 
to make a few observations which the nature of the subject 
appears to demand. 

One of the most striking features of the present section 
is the glimpse it affords us of the progressive sou 
nature, if I may venture to use such an ex- #ve of our Lords 
pression, of our Lord’s ministerial labors, and ithe 
the prophetic indications, as it were, which it supplies of 
the future universal diffusion of the Gospel. At first we 
have seen that our blessed Master was mercifully pleased 
to confine His teaching and His deeds of love and mercy 
mainly to that province which could now alone be reck- 
oned as the land of the old theocracy. In Judza He was 
pleased to dwell continuously more than eight 
months;* in Judea He gathered round Him 
disciples more numerous than those of John, and from Ju- 


John iv. 1. 


1 See above, Lect. rv. p. 185. The opinion there advanced, of the exact coin- 
cidence of the day on which the multitudes were fed with that on which the 
paschal-lamb was slain, derives some slight support from the subject of our 
Lord’s discourse (the bread of life, John vi. 22 sq.) at Capernaum on the follow- 
ing day, which, it does not appear at all unlikely, was suggested by the festal 
season. See below, p. 197. 

2 If we are correct in our general chronology, the present year would be 782 
A.U.C., and in this year the Passover would begin April 17 or 18 (see above, p. 
182, nete 1), and the feast of Tabernacles October 19. See the tables in Wieseler, 
Chron. Synops. p. 483. 

3 This ministry began with the Passover of the year 781 A. τ΄. c. (March 29), 
and concluded with our Lord’s departure to Galilee through Samaria, which, as 
we have seen above, may be fixed approximately as late in December. See 
Lect. 111. p. 128, note 3. 


190 THE MINISTRY IN NORTHERN GALILEE. Lect. V. 


dza He departed only when the malignity of Scribe and 
Pharisee rendered that favored land no longer a safe rest- 
ing-place for its Redeemer and its God. 
Then, and not till then, followed the minis- 
try in the eastern and, as it would seem, more Judaized? 
portion of Galilee. In due and mysterious order suc- 
ceeded those missionary labors in frontier lands where the 
Gentile element was mainly, if not in some cases exclu- 
sively, prevalent. This gradual enlargement of the field of 
holy labor does indeed seem both striking and suggestive ; 
this we may perhaps venture to regard as a result from 
our present system of harmonizing the Gospel narrative, 
which reflects on that system no small degree of plausibility. 
But there are contrasts too between the narrative of this 
present portion of our Lord’s history and 

tisanttheprecet, that which has preceded, which seem to il- 
wate” Justrate the foregoing remarks, and are in 
themselves both interesting and instructive. 

Though the portion of time vouchsafed to the ministry in, 
Capernaum and its vicinity was so short, yet with what 
minute accuracy is it detailed to us by the three Synoptical 
Evangelists! How numerous the miracles, how varied and 
impressive the teaching! Three continuous weeks only, 


Ver. 8, 


1 This last epithet may perhaps be questioned, but is apparently borne out by 
the essentially Jewish cha:acter of the district which the sacred narrative seems 
to reveal. The population of the great city of the district, Tiberias, though 
mixed (Joseph. Antig. xvi11. 2. 8), appears to have included a considerable and 
probably preponderant number of Jews, as we find it mentioned as in revolt 
against the Romans (Joseph. Vit. 9), while the other large city of Galilee, Sep- 
phoris, did not swerve from its allegiance. Capernaum too, if we agree to 
identify it with Tell Him (p. 121, note 1), must have had a large population of 
Jews at a time not very distant from the Christian era, otherwise we can hardly 
account for the extensive ruins, apparently of a synagogue of unusual magnifi- 
cence, which have been observed at that place by modern travellers. See Rob- 
inson, Palestine, Vol. 111. p. 846 (ed. 2), Thomson, The Land and the Book, Vol. 
i. p. 540. As to the supposed early date of the building, compare the remarks of 
Robiuson, Palest. Vol. iii. p. 74. 

2 Assuming our general dates to be right, our Lord’s first appearance in the 
synagogue at Nazareth would be on a Sabbath corresponding with the twenty- 
first day of the intercalated month Beadar, or, according to the Julian Calendar, 
March 26 or 27. The Passover, as we have already seen, commenced on April 
17 or 18. We have thus for the portion of our Lord’s ministry on which we 


Leot. V. THE MINISTRY IN NORTHERN GALILEE. 191 


yet in that short time one signal instance of the Lord’s 
controlling power over the elements,’ two records of tri- 
umphs over the power of death, three notable accounts of 
a stern sovereignty exercised over the spirits of perdition,? 
the formal founding of the Church, and the promulgation 
of all its deepest teaching. But in our present section, when 
we follow our Lord’s steps into half-heathen lands, though 
the time spent was so much greater, how few the recorded 
miracles, how isolated and detached the notices of them! 
Nay, more, our very inspired authorities yeinlans, 
seem to change their relations, and yet sug- preaching rather 


than miracles char- 


gest by the very change that local teaching  ceteristic of this 
. . - period. 

and preaching,’ rather than display of mi- 

raculous power, was the chief characteristic of these six 


have commented in the preceding Lecture only a period of about twenty-two 
days. It may be urged that this is far shorter than we could have inferred from 
the narrative; but it may be answered, that ἐγ the feast mentioned by St. 
John (ch. v. 1) be Purim, and ἐγ we consider, as we seem fairly justified in doing, 
the feeding of the five thousand coincident with the Passover-eve of the same 
year (see p. 147, note 2), then our Lord’s ministry in Eastern Galilee cannot 
readily be shown to have lasted longer than has been here supposed. It is by 
no means disguised that there are in this, as in every other system of chronology 
that has yet been proposed, many difficulties, and much that may make us very 
doubtful of our power of fixing the exact epochs of many events (see above, p. 
182, note 1); still, if the extreme chronological limits appear rightly fixed, we 
seem bound to accept the fair results of such an arrangement, if not as certainly 
true, yet at least as consistent with what has been judged to be so, and thus far 
as claiming our assent. For some remarks tending in some measure to dilute 
the force of a priori arguments founded on the apparent shortness of the time, 
see Wieseler, Chron. Synops. p. 288. 

1 We might have almost said two, as the miracle of walking on the water 
(Matt. xiv. 22, Mark vi. 48, John vi. 19), though placed in the portion on which 
we are now commenting, obviously belongs to the ministry in Eastern Galilee. 

2 These are, (1) the striking instance in the synagogue at Capernaum (Mark i. 
23 sq., Luke iv. 33 sq.), which so greatly amazed those who witnessed it; (2) the 
instance of healing the blind and deaf demoniac (Matt. xii. 22), which provoked 
the impious declarations of the Jerusalem scribes and Pharisees; and (8) the 
Gergesene demoniacs (Matt. viii. 28 sq., Mark v. i. sq., Luke viii. 26 sq.). 

3 The statement of Chrysostom (in Matt. Hom. tit. Vol. vii. p. 596, ed. Bened. 
2), that our Lord did not journey to the borders of Tyre and Sidon for the pur- 
pose of preaching there (οὐδὲ ὡς κηρύξων ἀπῆλϑεν), seems doubtful. From St. 
Mark, as Chrysostom urges, we learn that our Lord sought privacy ‘‘ and would 
have no man know” (ch. vii. 24), but this, from the immediate context, and, as 
it were, contrasted miracle, would seem to indicate a desire for partial rather 
than absolute concealment; a temporary laying aside of His merciful displays 
of divine power, rather than a suspension of His ministry. 


199 THE MINISTRY IN NORTHERN GALILEE. ΙΕστ.Υ͂. 


months of the Lord’s ministerial life. I ground this opin- 
ion on the easily verified fact that the professed histo- 
rian of his Master’s life, he who made it his duty to set in 
order the narrative which eye-witnesses had delivered, 

and who records to us events rather than 

discourses, has assigned to this six months’ 
period only some thirty or more verses,’ while to the brief 
but eventful period that preceded he has devoted at least 
seven times as much of his inspired record. Our principal 
authority, as we might almost expect, is St. Matthew; yet 
aot exclusively, as about one hundred and fifty verses of 
St. Mark’s Gospel relate to the same period.’ The events 
however recorded by both Evangelists taken together are 
so very few, that again the inference would seem reason- 
abie, that if two of those who were eye-witnesses — for in 
St. Mark we have the testimony of St. Peter — have 
related so little, our Lord’s miracles during this time could 
scarcely have been numerous. Miracles, as we know, were 
performed, but it was probably less by their influence than 
by the calm but persuasive influence of teaching and 
preaching that the Lord was pleased to touch and test the 
rude yet apparently receptive hearts of the dwellers in the 
remote uplands of Galilee, or in the borders of Hellenic 
Decapolis.* 


Luke i. 2. 


1 On the nature and characteristics of this Gospel, see Lect. 1. p. 41 sq. 

2 The only portion of St. Luke’s Gospel which appears to relate to this period 
»f our Lord’s ministry, if we except a very few verses which may perhaps belong 
to discourses during this period (ch. xv. 8—7, xvii. 1, 3), begins ch. ix. 18, and 
concludes with the fiftieth verse of the same chapter. Comp. Wieseler, Chron. 
Synops. p. 814. 

3 The portion of St. Mark’s Gospel that refers to this period of our Lord’s 
‘ninistry begins ch. vi. 45, and seems to conclude with the last verse of ch. ix. 
The next chapter describes our Lord as journeying into Judea by way of Perea, 
and, consequently, is describing the last journey to Jerusalem. See Lect. vi. 

4 The district, or, more strictly speaking, confederation bearing this name, 
seems to have been made up of cities and villages round them (Joseph. Vit. § 
65), of which the population was nearly entirely Gentile; two of the cities, Hip- 
pos and Gadara, are distinetly termed by Josephus (Antiq. x11. 11. 4) Ἑλληνίδες 
πόλεις. The geographical limits of Decapolis can scarcely be defined; we 
seem, however, justified in considering that nearly all the cities included in the 
confederation were across the Jordan, and on the eastern side of the lake of 
Gennesareth. Compare Eusebius, Onomast. s. v. ‘‘ Decapolis,” and see Winer, 
RWB. Art. ‘ Decapolis,” Vol. i. p. 268. 


Lect. V. THE MINISTRY IN NORTHERN GALILEE. 193 


This is exactly what we might have presumed to expect 
from the circumstances of the case, and from, Po} steak 
what has been incidentally revealed to us of probable from the 
the conditions on which the performance of ai eae 
the Lord’s miracles in a great measure depended. From 
the comment which both St. Matthew and 
St. Mark have made upon the repressing 
influence of the unbelief of the people of 
Nazareth, we seem justified in asserting that our Redeem- 
er’s miracles were in a great degree contingent upon the 
faith of those to whom the message of the Gospel was 
offered.1 How persuasively true then does that narrative 
appear which on the one hand represents the appeal te 
miracles most frequent and continuous in Eastern Galilee, 
where the receptivity was great and the contravening 
influences mainly due to alien emissaries,* — and, on the 
other, leaves us to infer, by its few and isolated notices, 
that amid the darkness and necessarily imperfect belief of 
the frontier lands that appeal was comparatively limited 
and exceptional. 

But it is now time for us to resume the thread of the 
inspired history. On that Passover-eve with | 9. 
which our narrative commences, our Lord, the take. Our Lord 
after having fed the five thousand, remains emiscrtr itr: & 
Himself behind on the eastern shore to dis- 
miss the yet lingering multitudes, but directs 
the disciples to cross over the lake to Beth- 
saida. From some supposed discordant notices in the 


Matt. xiii. 58. 


Mark vi. 5. 


Natt. xiv. 22. 
Mark vi. 45. 


1 The following comment of Origen is clear and pertinent: ‘‘ From these words 
(Matt. xiii. 58) we are taught that miracles were performed among the believing, 
since ‘to every one that hath it shall be given and shall be made to abound,’ 
but among unbelievers miracles not only were not, but, as St. Mark has recorded, 
even could not be performed. For attend to that ‘He could not perform any 
miracle there;’ he did not say ‘He would not,’ but ‘He could not,’ implying 
that there is an accessory coéperation with the miraculous power supplied by 
the faith of Him towards whom the miracle is being performed, but that there is 
a positive hinderance caused by unbelief.” —Jn Matt. x. 18, Vol. iii. p. 466 (ed. 
Bened.). See also Euthym. Matt. xiii. 58. 

2 See above, Lect. Iv. p. 162, note 1. 


17 


194. THE MINISTRY IN NORTHERN GALILEE.  Lecr. V. 


accounts given of the circumstances which followed, it has 
been urged that this Bethsaida was the town of that 
name, known also by the name of Julias, not far from the 
head of the lake,‘ and with this supposition it may be con- 
ceded that there are some statements in the sacred narra-~ 
tive that at first sight seem to be fairly accordant: as, how- 
ever, the supposed discordances and difficulties are really 
only imaginary, there seems no sufficient reason for depart- 
ing from the ordinarily received opinion that this was the 
village on the western side. Nay, more, the scarcely 
doubtful direction of the gale from the south-west,? which 
would bring, as we are afterwards told, ves- 
sels from Tiberias to the north-eastern coast, 
but would greatly delay a passage in the contrary direc- 
tion, seems to make against such a supposition, and to lead 
us decidedly to believe that Bethsaida on the western coast 
was the point which the Apostles were trying to reach, 


John vi. 23. 


1 This view, which is perhaps originally due to Lightfoot (Chron. Temp. § 47, 
Vol. ii. p. 80, Roterod. 1686), is very elaborately maintained by Wieseler (Chron. 
Synops. p. 274, note), and has also found a recent advocate in Dr. Thomson ( The 
Land and the Book, Vol. ii. p. 30 sq.), who conceives that there was really 
only one Bethsaida, viz. the town at the northeastern corner of the lake. In 
opposition to Lightfoot and Wieseler, we may justly urge, jirst, the distinct 
words of St. Matthew, describing the position of the vessel on its return, τὸ δὲ 
πλοῖον 15H μέσον τῆς ϑαλάσσης ἣν (ch. xiv. 24; comp. Mark vi. 47); and, 
secondly, the words of St. Mark, προάγει» εἰς τὰ πέραν πρὸς βηδσαϊδάν 
(ch. vi. 45), which, when coupled with the above notice of the position of the 
vessel, it does seem impossible to explain otherwise than as specifying a direct 
course across the lake. Compare also John vi.17. With regard to Dr. Thom- 
son’s opinion, it may be observed that all modern writers seem rightly to acqui- 
esce in the opinion of Reland that there was a place of that name on the west- 
ern coast, very near Capernaum. Robinson fixes its site as at the modern 
et-Tabighah (Palestine, Vol. 111. p. 859, ed. 2), but there seems good reason for 
agreeing with Ritter in placing it at Khan Minyeh, and in fully admitting the 
statement of Seetzen, that this last-mentioned place was also known by the local 
name of Bat-Szaida. See Erdkunde, Part xv. p. 333 sq. That there should be 
two places called Bethsaida (‘*‘ House of Fish”) on or near a lake so well known, 
not only for the peculiar varieties (Joseph. Bell. Jud. 111. 10. 8), but the great 
abundance of its fish, as that of Gennesareth, cannot justly be considered at alk 
improbable. 

2 See Blunt, Veracity of Evangelists, No. xx. p. 82, who appears rightly to 
connect with the mention of the gale the incidental notice of the passage of 
boats from Tiberias to the N. E. corner of the lake. For a description of these 
sudden and often /asting gales, see Thomson, Land and the Book, Vol. ii. p. 82, 
and comp. p. 177, note 2. 


Lect. V. THE MINISTRY IN NORTHERN GALILEE. 195 


and trying to reach in vain. Though they had started in 
the evening;! they had not crossed the lake by the time of 
the fourth watch; still were they toiling 
against the stirred-up waters and tempestu- 
_ous wind, when to their bewilderment they 
see the Lord walking on those storm-tossed waves, and, as it 
were, leading the way? to the haven they had so long been 
striving to reach. We well remember the incident of the 
striking but, alas, soon failing faith of St. 
Peter, the ceasing of the wind, and the 
speedy arrival of the vessel at the land 
whither they were going; and we have, perhaps, not forgot- 
ten that this miracle produced a greater impression on the 
Apostles than any they had yet witnessed. The miracle 
of the multiplied loaves they could not fully appreciate. 


Matt. xiv. 25. 
Mark vi. 48. 


Matt. xiv. 28 sq. 
John vi. 21. 


1 Some little difficulty has been found in the specifications of time in the nar- 
rative, owing to the inclusive nature of the term ὀψία. The following remarks 
will perhaps adjust the seeming discrepancies. From St. Matthew (ch. xiv. 15) 
we learn that it was ὀψία before the men sat down. This we may reasonably 
suppose roughly specifies some time in the jirst evening (3 P.M.—6 P.M.), which 
again the ὥρα πολλὴ of St. Mark (ch. vi. 35) would seem more nearly to define 
as rather towards the close than the commencement of that ὀψία. At the begin- 
ning of the second evening, probably soon after six o’clock, the disciples embark 
(John vi. 16), and ere this ὀψία, which extended from sunset to darkness, had 
quite concluded, the disciples had reached the middle of the lake (Mark vi. 47; 
comp. Matt. xiv. 24), and were now experiencing the full force of a gale, which, 
probably commencing soon after sunset (compare Thomson, Lund and the Book, 
Vol. ii. p. 32), was now becoming hourly more wild. For some hours they con- 
tend against it, but without making more than a few stadia (comp. John vi. 19; 
the lake was about forty stadia broad; Joseph. Bell. Jud. 111. 10. 7), when, in 
the fourth watch (Matt. xiv. 25), they beheld our Lord walking on the waters, 
and approaching the vessel. On the first and second evenings see Gesenius, Lex. 
8.v 27%, p- οι. (Bagster), Jahn, Archeol. Bibl. § 101. 

2 See Mark vi. 48, καὶ ἤϑελεν παρελϑεῖν αὐτούς ; and compare Lange, Leben 
Jesu, 11. 5. 8, Part 11. p. 788. 

3 On this miracle, which is one of the seven selected by St. John (comp. Ewald, 
Gesch. Christus’, p. 359, note), and which, as the Greek commentators rightly 
observe (see Chrysost. and Euthymius in Matt. xiv. 38), evinces even more dis- 
tinctly than the stilling of the tempest our Lord’s power over the laws that 
govern the material world, —see some novel, though too allegorically applied 
comments in Origen, in Matt. vi. 5, Vol. iii. p. 484 sq. (ed. Bened.), and in Augus- 
tine, Serm. LXXV. LxXxvi. Vol. v. p. 474 sq. More general comments will be 
found in Hall, Contempl. 1v. 6, Trench, Miracles, p. 274 sq.; and notices of Wiffi- 
culties in this and the accompanying narrative, in Ebrard, Kritik der Evang. 
Geschichte, § 76, p. 891. 


190 THE MINISTRY IN NORTHERN GALILEE. Lect. V. 


Though, as we well know, it had produced a profound 
effect upon those for whose sake it had been 
performed, and had caused them to confess 
that this was “of a truth that prophet that 
should come into the world,” and though we cannot doubt. 
that in such a confession the Apostles had also silently 
shared, yet we are plainly told by the sec- 
ond Evangelist that their hearts were too 
hard and too dull to understand fully the mighty miracle 
at which they themselves had been permitted to minister. 
Here, however, was something that produced on them a 
far deeper impression; here was something that appealed 
to those hardy boatmen as nought else could have ap- 
pealed, and made them, both with their lips and by their 
outward and unforbidden posture of worship, 
avow, for the first time collectively, that their 
Master was what one of them had long since separately 
declared Him to be, not only “the king of 
Israel,” but ‘the Son of God.”? 
Ys pipes sas The morning brings back to the western 
aay Pag side many® of those who had been miracu- 
lously fed the evening before, and to them, 
in the synagogue at Capernaum (for it was the fifteenth 
of Nisan and a day of solemn service*), the Lord utters 


John vi. 15. 
Ver. 14. 


Ch. vi. 52. 


Natt. xiv. 33. 


John i. 49. 


1 On the full signification of the title ‘‘Son of God,” as applied to our Lord 
in the New Testament, see the valuable remarks of Wilson, J/lustr. of the New 
Test. ch. 11. p.10sq. In the present case it is impossible to doubt that it was 
aught else than a full and complete recognition, not merely of our Saviour’s 
Messiahship (Meyer), which would here be wholly out of place, but of His 
divine nature and prerogatives. 

2 Unnecessary difficulties have been made about the transit of the multitude. 
Without unduly pressing 6 ἑστηκώς (Stier), as specially implying those who 
remained, in contrast with those that went away, it still seems obvious from the 
tenor of the narrative that those who followed our Lord were only the more 
earnest and deeply impressed portion of the multitude. Boats they would find 
in abundance, as the traffic on the lake was great, and the gale would have 
driven boats in a direction from Tiberias, and obliged them to seek shelter on 
the northeastern shore. See above, p. 194, note 2,and compare Sepp, Leben 
Christi, v. 7, Vol. iii. 16. 

3 S& Ley. xxiii. 7, Deut. xxviii. 18, from both of which passages we learn 
that there was to be a holy convocation on the day, and no servile work done 
thereon. 


1Εστ.. THE MINISTRY IN NORTHERN GALILEE. 197 


that sublime discourse recorded by St. John, so strik- 
ingly in accordance not only with the past miracle but 
with the present Passover-season, wherein He declares 
Himself to be the Bread of Life. The whole discourse is 
worthy of our attention,’ as serving to confirm, perhaps 
in a somewhat striking way, some of the views which we 
were led to adopt last Sunday in regard to the spiritual 
state of the people of Capernaum and its neighborhood. 
It seemed almost clear, you may remember, that the hos- 
tility and unbelief which the Lord met with at Capernaum 
were in a great degree to be traced to malignant emissa- 
ries from Jerusalem, subsequently joined by 

some Galilzan Pharisees.” We may reasona- _, ate» 7s comp. 
bly’ conceive that these evil men had now 

left Galilee to celebrate the Passover, and we may in con- 
sequence be led to expect far fewer exhibitions of hatred 
and hostility when our Lord vouchsafes to preach in the 
synagogue from which they were temporarily absent. 
And this is exactly what we do find recorded by the 
fourth Evangelist. We detect traces of doubt and sus- 
pended belief in some of the assembled 


: John vi. 30. 
hearers, nay, we are told of murmurings 
from the more hostile section then present,’ 
: Ver. 41. 
when our Lord declares that He Himself Ὁ ς 


was “the bread which came down from 
heaven ;” we observe, too, strivings among themselves as 


1 For good and copious comments on this discourse, the subject of which is 
the mysterious relation of our Lord to His people as the Bread of Life, and as 
the spiritual sustenance of believers, see Chrysostom, in Joann. Hom. XLIv. 
—XLvil., Cyril Alex. in Joann. Vol. iv. pp. 295—372 (ed. Aubert), Augustine, in 
Joann. Tractat. XXV. XXVI., and among modern writers in Luthardt, das Johann. 
Evang. Part 11. pp. 49—64, and Stier, Disc. of our Lord, Vol. y. pp. 149—205 
(Clark). 

2 See above, p. 162, note 1. 

3 It deserves notice that the speakers are now not, as above, some of the mul- 
titude who had followed our Lord, and whose questions had received the solemn 
answers recorded in the earlier portion of the discourse, but are specially noticed 
as Ιουδαῖοι ; ἐ. e., according to what seems St. John’s regular use of the term, 
adherents of the party that was specially hostile to our Lord. See above, p. 137, 
note 3. 


178 


198 THE MINISTRY IN NORTHERN GALILEE. Lecr Ψ, 


to the true meaning of His weighty words;! but we are 
shocked by none of those outbursts of maddened hatred 
which on an earlier occasion marked the 
mere tscom. presence of the intruders from Jerusalem. 
It is clear, however, that evil seed had been 
sown and was springing up; itis plain that our Lord’s 
words caused offence, and that not merely to the general 
multitude, but, alas, to some unspiritual disciples, who, 
St. John tells us shortly but sadly, “ went 
back, and walked with Him no more.” But 
the holy Twelve were true and firm: they who a few 
hours before, on the dark waters of the solitary lake, had 
confessed their Master’s divinity, now again, 
in the face of all men, declare by the mouth 
of St. Peter? that they believed and were 
sure that “ He was Christ,the Son of the living God.” 


Ch. vi. 66. 


Hatt. xv. 33. 
John vi. 69. 


1 These strivings, though in a different and better spirit, have continued to this 
very day. Without entering deeply into the contested question of the reference of 
the words kal ὁ ἄρτος, κ. T. A. (ver. 51), we may remark generally (1) that the allu- 
sion in ver. 50 is clearly to the Incarnation, which at the commencement of ver. 51 
is more fully unfolded, and in the conclusion of that verse seems also further 
(kal ὃ ἄρτος“ δέ, κ. τ. Δ.) followed out to its last most gracious purpose, —the 
giving up of the human flesh thus assumed to atone for the sins of mankind: 
ἀποδνήσκω φησίν, ὑπὲρ τάντων, ἵνα πάντας ζωοποιήσω δι’ ἐμαυτοῦ, Cyril 
Alex. in loc. Vol. iv. p. 358. This supposition, thus derived from the context, is 
strongly confirmed by the word σάρξ, which, especially in its present connec- 
tion, seems intended still more definitely to point to our Lord’s atoning death. 
Compare Eph. ii. 15, Col. i. 22,1 Pet. iii. 18. To which we may add (2) that the 
idea pervading the whole verse, — Christ the bread of the world, and the further 
explanations which our Lord Himself vouchsafes (ver. 53), fully warrant a 
reference, not directly and exclusively, but indirectly and inclusively, to the 
Holy Communion of our Lord’s body and blood. For an account of the vari- 
ous conflicting views, see Liicke, Comment. tiber Joh. Vol. ii. p. 152 sq. (ed. 3), 
Meyer, ib. p. 209 (ed. 8); but to ascertain the exact opinion of the patristic 
writers there referred to, the student will be wise to consult the original writers. 

2 This confession of St. Peter, which, as Chrysostom rightly remarks, was said 
in behalf of all (οὐ yap εἶπεν ““ἔγνωκα,᾽᾽ ἀλλ᾽ “ἐγνώκαμεν ᾽), is certainly not 
to be regarded as identical with that recorded in Matt. xvi. 16: contrast Wiese- 
ler, Chron. Synops. p. 277. Time, place, and circumstances seem so clearly dif- 
ferent that we can hardly fail to admit, what is in itself highly natural, that the 
fervid apostle twice made a similar confession. Such seems distinctly the 
opinion of Chrysostom (in loc.), who alludes to the other confession as ἀλλαχοῦ. 
The exact words of the confession are not perfectly certain. We have followed 
above the Received Text, but as there seems some probability of alteration from 
Matt. xvi. 16 (see Meyer and Alford in loc.) it may be fairly questioned whether 
the reading of BCIDL, 6 ἅγιος τοῦ Θεοῦ, is not to be preferred. 


Lect. V. THE MINISTRY IN NORTHERN GALILEE. 199 


Of the miraculous events that immediately followed 
we can only speak in general terms. Both 
St. Matthew and St. Mark here expressly ἰδ i (ow 
mention numerous healings which were ἔμ 0 the Jewish 
performed in the plain of Gennesareth. 
Both speak of the great confluence of the sick and 
the suffering; both specify the mightiness |... 56. 
of the power with which they were healed. Mark οἱ. 55. 
To the performance of these deeds of mercy _ Matt. aiv. 36. 
a short time —a few days perhaps—may “~~” ™ 
reasonably be assigned;* but it was a short time only. 
Those healing hands were, alas, soon to be stayed. Old 
enemies were by this time on their way back again to 
bring charges and to condemn; the human agents of the 
kingdom of darkness were again arraying themselves 
against the Lord of the kingdom of light. 
St. Matthew and St. Mark both relate the 7°" 
arrival of Scribes and Pharisees from Jeru- Ὁ 
salem,?— beyond all doubt those whose machinations we 
noticed in our last lecture, and who now, with the true 
spirit of the sect to which they belonged, had formally 
observed their Passover at Jerusalem, and had hastened 
back, as it were from the presence of the God of justice 


1 In the narrative of St. Matthew there is nothing to guideus. The remark, 
however, of St. Mark, ὅπου ἂν εἰσεπορεύετο εἰς κώμας ἢ εἰς πόλεις ἢ εἰς ἄγρους 
(ch. vi. 56), seems to indicate a continued ministry in the neighborhood of Caper- 
naum, of at least a few days’ duration. Wieseler (Chron. Synops. p. 311, note) 
seems to refer not only all these events, but also the reply of our Lord to the 
Pharisees on the subject of eating with unwashen hands (Matt. xv. 1 sq., Mark 
vii. 1 sq.), to the same day as that on which the discourse on the Bread of Life 
was delivered, ὁ. 6. on Nisan 15. This, however, is by no means probable. The 
Pharisees and Scribes, who are specified both by the first and second Evangelists 
as having come from Jerusalem, would hardly have left the city till the festival 
of the Passover was fully concluded. Origen (in Matt. Tom. ΧΙ. 8) comments 
on the τότε (Matt. xv. 1) as marking a general coincidence in point of time 
with the healings in Gennesareth, but gives no precise opinion as to the exact 
time when the emissaries reappeared. 

2 Chrysostom (in Matt. xv. 1) has noticed the special mention of the place 
whence they had come, remarking that the Scribes and Pharisees from the 
capital were both actuated by a worse spirit and held more in repute than those 
from other parts of Judea. Hom. 11. Vol. vii. p. 585 (ed. Bened, 2). See 
Euthymius, in duc. Vol. i. p. 605. ot 


200 THE MINISTRY IN NORTHERN GALILEE. Lect. V. 


and truth, to take counsel against innocent blood. Ground 
of accusation is soon found out. These base men had 
perhaps insidiously crept into the social meetings of the 
disciples, and marked with malignant eyes the freedom of 
early evangelical life, and the charge is soon made: “Why 
walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the 
elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?” 

a aie Stern and crushing indeed is the answer 
which is returned, startling the application 
of prophecy, plain the principle, declared 
openly and plainly to the throng of bystanders,’ that de- 
filement is not from without, but from within. 
Complete indeed was the vindication, but 
dangerous in its very completeness. The Pharisees, as 
we learn incidentally, were now still more 
deeply offended; their malevolence was as- 
suming hourly a more implacable form, and, not improba- 
bly, hourly becoming more and more contagious. Doubts, 
suspicion, and perhaps aversion,” were now not improbably 
fast springing up in the minds even of those 
who once would fain have prevented the 
Lord from ever leaving their highly-favored land. Nor 
was this all. Other evil influences were at work, not only 
among the people, but among their rulers; for we may 


Mark vii. 6. 


Matt. xv. 11. 


Ver. 12, 


Luke iv. 42. 


1 Both St. Matthew and St. Mark notice the fact that our Lord called the 
mixed multitude round Him (Matt. xvi. 10, καὶ προσκαλεσάμενος τὸν ὄχλον. 
Comp. Mark vii. 14) and declared more especially to them (τρέπει τὸν λόγον 
πρὸς Tov ὄχλον ws ἀξιολογώτερον, Euthym.) the principle, which the Pharisees 
would have been slow to admit, that defilement was from within, and not from 
without. It would seem, however, that this was uttered in the hearing of the 
Pharisees, and that, as Euthymius rightly suggests, this was the λόγος (Matt. 
xv. 12) at which, both from its sentiment and the publicity given to it, the Phar- 
isees were so much offended. Comp. Meyer, in loc. p. 306 (ed. 4). 

2 This seems in some measure to transpire in St. John’s account of our Lord’s 
recent preaching at Capernaum, especially in those expressions of thorough 
Nazarene unbelief (Luke iv. 22, Mark vi. 8) which followed our Lord’s declara- 
tion that He was the ‘‘ Bread which came down from heaven ” (John vi. 41 sq.). 
Though it is right to remember that these expressions came from a hostile sec- 
tion (see above, p. 197, note 8), yet the very presence of such a section in a syna- 
gogue where a very short time before the only feeling was amazement (Mark i, 
22, Luke iv. 32), seems to show that some change of feeling was beginning decid- 
edly to show itself. 


Lect. V. THE MINISTRY IN NORTHERN GALILEE. 204 


remember that it was but a short time before that the 
evil and superstitious Herod Antipas’ had 
evinced a strong desire to see One of whom 
he had heard tidings that filled him with uneasiness and 
perplexity. And such a desire on the part 
of the murderer of the Baptist, we may well 
infer, could bode nothing but ill against One whom his 
fears had made him believe was his victim come back 
again from the grave.? All the Lord’s secret or avowed 
enemies thus seemed unconsciously working together; 
danger was on every side, and eastern Galilee was proba- 
bly fast becoming as unsafe an abode for the Redeemer 
and His Apostles as Judza had been a few months before. 
However this may be, the blessing of the Lord’s pres- 
ence was now to be vouchsafed to other 
δ Journey to Tyre 
lands. In the remote west and in the con- and Sidon, and the 
fines® of Tyre the Lord was now pleased fot DANUE, 
to seek, if not for a security that was denied 
at Capernaum, yet for a seclusion that might 
have been needed for a yet further instruction of the 


Luke ix. 9. 


Ver. 7. 


Mark vii. 24. 


1 What little we know of the character of this Tetrarch is chiefly derived from 
what is recorded of him in the Gospels, especially in that of St. Luke. Josephus 
notices chiefly his love of ease and expense (Antiq. xvitI. 7.1 sq.), but in the 
sacred writers, beside the mention of his adultery and murder of the Baptist, 
we also find allusions that prove him to have been a thoroughly bad man. Com- 
pare Luke iii. 19, and Nolde, Historia Idum. p. 251 sq. 

2In the account given by the three Synoptical Evangelists (Matt. xiv. 1 sq., 
Mark vi. 14 sq., Luke ix. 7 sq.) we have the workings of a bad conscience plainly 
set before us. Observe the emphatic ἐγώ (Luke ix. 9), and the desire expressed 
to see our Lord so as to satisfy himself that the general opinion (Luke ix. 7), in 
which he himself seems to have shared (Matt. xiv. 2, Mark vi. 16; comp. Chrys. 
in Matt. l. c.), was not true after all. There seems no reason for ascribing to the 
Tetrarch a belief in any form of transmigration of souls (comp. Grotius 77 doc.); 
his words were merely the natural accents of guilty fear. 

8 This seems the correct inference from the words of St. Mark (τὰ μεϑόρια 
Τύρου, ch. vii. 24) coupled with the incidental comment of St. Matthew (ἀπὸ 
τῶν ὁρίων ἐκείνων ἐξελϑοῦσα, ch. xv. 22). At present, it would seem, our Lord 
had not actually crossed into the territory of Tyre, but was in the district 
closely contiguous to it. Origen (in Matt. Tom. x1. 16) rightly connects this 
journey with the offence given to the Pharisees by our Lord’s declaration to the 
multitudes on the subject of inward and outward pollution (Matt. xv. 11, Mark 
vii. 15). Compare also Greswell, Dissert. xx11I. Vol. ii. p. 854. That it was also 
for quiet and repose (Euthym.) is to be inferred from Mark vii. 24. 


909 ΤῊΝ MINISTRY IN NORTHERN GALILEE. Lect. V. 


Apostles in the things pertaining to the kingdom of God. 
But, as St. Mark records, “He could not be 
hid.” There was faith even in those dark- 
ened and heathen lands, and a faith that in one instance 
at least was proved and was blessed. No sooner was it 
known that the Lord was there than one poor woman at 
once crossed the frontier, which as yet the 
Redeemer had not passed, and with those 
strange words on heathen lips, “ Have mercy on me, Lord, 
thou Son of David,” called upon the Lord 
with importunate energy to heal her demo- 
niac daughter. The whole tenor of the narrative of both 
the Evangelists who relate the incidents seems clearly to 
show that this passionate call and these wildly-uttered 
words at first met with no response. Our Lord was silent. 
When, however, that suppliant drew nigh, when she fell 
at her Redeemer’s feet, and uttered those pity-moving 
words of truest faith, “Lord, help me,” then 
was it that the all-merciful One beheld and 
vouchsafed to accept a faith that was permitted to extend 
the very sphere of His own mission. The Canaanite was 
heard; the descendant of ancient idolaters? was practi- 
cally accounted as one of the lost sheep of the house of 
Israel; the devil was cast out, and the child was healed.’ 


Mark vii. 24. 


Hatt. xv. 22. 


Ver. 22. 


Hatt. xv. 25. 


1 See Matthew xv. 23. That this silence on the part of our Lord was designed 
to prove the faith of the woman is the opinion of the ancient commentators (see 
Chrys. in Matt. Hom. 11. 2), and seems certainly borne out by the trying 
answer of our Lord (Matt. xv. 26, Mark vii. 27) which was vouchsafed to her 
second entreaty. To suppose that our Lord was here condescending to the 
prejudices of the apostles (Milman, Hist. of Christianity, Vol. i. p. 258) is not 
probable or satisfactory; still less so is the supposition that He was simply over- 
come by her faithful importunity (De Wette, Meyer); as Chrysostom properly 
says, Εἰ μὴ δοῦναι ἔμελλεν, οὐδ᾽ ἂν μετὰ ταῦτα ἔδωκεν. Vol. vii. p. 598 (ed. 
Bened. 2). 

2 The term Χαναναία, used by St. Matthew (ch. xv. 22), seems fully to justify 
this statement. She is termed Ἑλληνίς (i. e. a heathen, not of Jewish descent), 
Συροφοινίκισσα (Lachm.) or Σύρα Φοινίκισσα ( Tisch.) τῷ γένει by St. Mark (ch. 
vii. 26), a definition perfectly accordant with that of St. Matthew, as these Syro- 
Phenicians probably derived their origin from the remains of old Canaanite 
nations which had withdrawn on the conquest of Palestine to the extreme 
northern coasts, Comp. Winer, RWB. Art. ‘‘ Canaaniter,” Vol. i. p. 210. 

8 On this miracle, the characteristics of which are that it was performed on 


Lect. V. THE MINISTRY IN NORTHERN GALILEE. 208 


How long our Lord abode in these regions we know not; 
but as this touching miracle is the only inci- 
dent recorded by the Evangelists, and as the prone ams 


eastern shore of the 


privacy which our Lord sought for was now {77 

still less likely to be maintained, we may, 

perhaps, not unreasonably conclude that after a short stay, 
yet probably long enough for His enemies to have returned 
back to Jerusalem, our Lord again turned His steps back- 
ward, passing through the midst of the semi-pagan Decap- 
olis,| and ultimately approaching the sea of Galilee, as it 
would seem, from the further side-of the 

Jordan. Equally, or nearly equally, ignorant 0”? Ma" οἷς 
are we of the extent of this northern journey; 

if, however, we adopt a reading which now finds a place in 
most critical editions,? we are certainly led to extend this 
journey beyond the Tyrian frontier, and further to draw 
the interesting inference, that our Lord, moved probably 
by the great faith of the Syro-Phenician woman, actually 
passed into the heathen territory, visited ancient and idol- 
atrous Sidon,? and from the neighborhood of that city 


one of heathen descent, at a distance from the sufferer (comp. p. 182, note 2), 
and in consequence of the great faith of the petitioner (‘‘ vox humilis sed celsa 
fides,” Sedulius), see Chrysost. in Matt. Hom. Li1., Augustine, Serm. LXXVII. 
Vol. v. p. 483 (ed. Migné), Bp. Hall, Contempl. rv. 1, Trench, Miracles, p. 339 
eq., and Lange, Leben Jesu, 11. 5. 10, Part 11. p. 865 sq. The allegorical reference 
nccording to which the woman represents the Gentile Church, and her daughter 
γὴν πρᾶξιν κυριευομένην ὑπὸ δαιμόνων, is briefly but ῬΕΥΕΡΙΘΠΌΒΕΙΥ noticed by 
Euthymius in Matt. xv. 28. 

1 See above, p. 192, note 4, where the character of this confederation is briefly 
noticed. 

2 The reading in question is ἦλϑεν διὰ Σιδῶνος (Mark vii. 31), which is found 
in the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Beza, in the valuable MS. marked L, in A 
(Codex Sangallensis), and in several ancient versions of considerable critical 
value, e. g. the Old Latin, Vulgate, Coptic, and Ethiopic. It has been adopted 
by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Fritzsche, Meyer, Alford, and Tregelles, and appears 
certainly to deserve the preference which these critics and commentators have 
thus unanimously given to it. See Meyer, Komment. ib. Mark. p. 80 (ed. 8). 

3 It is not safe to enlarge upon a point which rests only on a probable reading; 
but if we accept this reading, it must be acknowledged as a fact of the greatest 
significance in reference to the subsequent diffusion of the Gospel, that the city 
of Baal and of Astarte was visited by the Redeemer of mankind. See above, p. 
1. This question is worthy of further consideration. 


204 THE MINISTRY IN NORTHERN GALILEE. Lect. V.° 


commenced His south-easterly circuit towards Decapolis 
and the further shore of the sea of Gennesareth. 
On that shore He was not now to be a strange and 
unwelcome visitor, There, in that region of 
π᾿ Decapolis, lips by which devils once had 
deafanddumbman. spoken had already proclaimed the power 
Contrast Matt. ix. 1 
: and majesty of Him that had now vouchsafed 
True vii. 29 to journey through that darkened land; and 
there too those lips had not spoken in vain. 
No sooner had the Lord appeared among them, than, as 
St. Mark relates to us, His healing powers are 
besought for a deaf and all but dumb man 
who is brought to Him, and brought only to be healed. 
It is worthy of ἃ moment’s notice that both this and a 
miracle performed shortly afterwards on a 
blind man at Bethsaida-Julias were accom- 
panied with a withdrawal of the sufferer from the throng 
of bystanders, special outward signs, and, in the case of 
the latter miracle, a more gradual process of restoration. 
All these differences it is undoubtedly right to connect 
with something peculiar in the individual cases of those on 
whom the miracle was performed;* yet still it does not 
seem improper to take into consideration the general fact 
that these were miracles performed in lands which the 
Lord had before traversed, —lands where the nature of 
His healing powers might have been wholly misunderstood, 
and to which, for the spiritual benefit of the sufferers, it was 
judged meet that their earnest and deliberate attention *® 


84 


Ch. vii. 32. 


Mark viii. 22. 


1 On this miracle, the characteristics of which are alluded to in the text, see 
the comments of Maldonatus and Olshausen, Hook, Serm. on the Miracles, Vol. 
ii. p. 49 sq., Trench, Notes on the Miracles, p. 848 sq.,and Hare (Jul.), Serm. 
xIv. Vol. i. p. 245. 

2 See Olshausen on the Gospels, Vol. ii. p. 206 (Clark), who comments at some 
length on the peculiarities in the performance of this miracle, and in that of the 
healing of the blind man at Bethsaida. Some good comments will also be 
found in Maldonatus, Comment. in Marc. vii. 33. The withdrawal from the 
crowd is ascribed by the scholiast in Cramer’s Catena (Vol. i. p. 338) to a desire 
on the part of our Lord to avoid display (iva μὴ δόξῃ ἐπιδεικτικῶς ἐπιτελεῖν 
τὰς Jeoonuias); but this, in the present case, seems very doubtful. 

3 So in effect Maldonatus: “ Quia ergo qui surdi sunt, videntur re aliqua obtu- 


Lect. V. THE MINISTRY IN NORTHERN GALILEE. 205 


should be especially directed. Both these miracles, we may 
also observe, were accompanied with a command to preserve 
silence,’ but in the case of the present miracle 
it was signally disobeyed. So widely, indeed, 
was the fame of it spread abroad that great multitudes, as 
we are told by St. Matthew, brought their 
sick unto the Lord; and He, who as He Him- 
self had but recently declared, was not come 
“save to the lost sheep of the house of Israel,” nevertheless 
sought His Father’s glory even amidst half-Gentile Decap- 
olis; so that it is not, perhaps, without deep meaning that 
the first Evangelist tells us that “theyglorified ς6ῸὃὋ 

the God of Israel.” And they were yet to Zhe feeding of the 

: : : Sour thousand. 

glorify Him more, and to be the witnesses of 

the creative as well as of the healing powers of His beloved 
Son. Those eager-hearted men had now soswelled in num- 
bers that four thousand, without counting 
women and children, were gathered round the 
Lord and His Apostles, and He who had so pitied and re- 
lieved their afflictions now pitied and relieved their wants. 
They had come from far; they were faint 
and weary, and were to be miraculously 
refreshed. Seven loaves feed the four thousand, just as, a 
few weeks before, and perhaps not far from the same spot, 


Mark vii. 36. 


Ch. xv. 80. 
Ver. 24. 


att. xv. 38. 


Hark viii. 3. 


ratas habere aures, mittit digitum in aures surdi, quasi clausas et obturatas tere- 
braturus, aut impedimentum, quod in illis erat, ablaturus digito. Et quia qui 
muti sunt, videntur ligatam nimia siccitate habere linguam (?), palatoque adhe- 
rentem, ideoque loqui non posse... mittit salivam in os muti, quasi ejus linguam 
humectaturus.” — Vol. i. p. 762 (Mogunt. 1611). 

1 See above, p. 180, note 3. 

2 This did not escape the notice of Origen (in Matt. Tom. x1. 18), who remarks 
as follows: ‘‘ Yea, they glorify Him, being persuaded that the Father of Him 
who healed the man above-mentioned is one and the same God with the God of 
Israel; for God is not the God of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles.” — Vol. 
iii. p. 508 (ed. Bened.). Theophylact (in Matt. xv. 29) places the scene in Galilee, 
but, as the parallel passage in St. Mark (ch. vii. 31 sq.) seems clearly to prove, 
not correctly. Comp. Robinson, Palestine, Vol. ii. p. 397, note 2. 

3 The locality is not very clearly defined. That it was an uninhabited place 
appears from Matt. xv. 33, and that it was on the high ground east of the lake 
may be inferred from ver. 31. As the spot to which our Lord' crosses over is 
situated about the middle of the western coast; we may perhaps consider the 


18 


206 THE MINISTRY IN NORTHERN GALILEE. Lect. V. 


five loaves had fed a greater number; “they did all eat,” 
says the first Evangelist, “and were filled, 
and they took up of the broken meat that 
was left seven baskets full.” 

We may here pause, yet for a moment only, to make our 
Pee ere decided protest against that shallow criticism 
es ei af tke which would persuade us that this distinctive 

miracle is merely an ill-remembered repro- 
duction of the feeding of the five thousand a few weeks 
before. Few opinions can be met more easily; few of 
the many misstatements that have been made in reference 
to the miracles of our Redeemer can be disposed of more 
readily and more satisfactorily. Let it be observed only 
that everything that might seem most clearly to specify 
and to characterize is different in the two miracles. The 
number of loaves in the latter miracle is greater; the 
number of fish greater; the remnants collected less; the 
people fewer; the time they had tarried longer; their 
behavior in the sequel noticeably different. The more 
excitable inhabitants of the coast-villages of the north 
and the west,? we are distinctly told, would 
have borne away our Lord and made Him a 
king, if He had not withdrawn into the mountains; the 
men of Decapolis and the eastern shores permit the Lord 


Matt. xv. 37; 


John vi. 15. 


high ground in the neighborhood of the ravine nearly opposite to Magdala, 
which is now called Wady Semak, as not very improbably the site of the present 
miracle. 

1 See, for example, De Wette, on Matt. xv. 29, and Neander, Life of Christ, 
p. 287, note (Bohn). The remarks in the text seem sufficiently to demonstrate 
that such a view is wholly untenable. See more in Olshausen, Comment. Vol. ii. 
p. 209 sq. (Clark), Ebrard, Kritik der Evang. Gesch. § 86, p. 483; and compare 
Origen, in Matt. xi. 19, Vol. iii. p. 509 (ed. Bened.), Alford, Commentary, Vol. 
i. p. 157 (ed. 4). 

2 The recipients in the case of the former miracle appear to have come mainly 
from the western side. Compare Mark vi. 383. They followed our Lord, we are 
told, on foot (Matt. xiv. 18), and would consequently have passed round the 
northern extremity of the lake, receiving probably, as they went, additions from 
Bethsaida-Julias and the places in its vicinity. Chrysostom (in Matt. Hom. 
1111. 2) seems to imply that the effect produced by this miracle was as great as 
that produced by the former miracle; this may have been so, but it certainly 
cannot be inferred from the words of the sacred narrative. 


ixect.V. THE MINISTRY IN NORTHERN GALILEE. 207 


to leave them without any recorded excitement or demon- 
stration. Let all these things be fairly and temperately 
considered, and there will, I firmly believe, be found but 
few indeed who will feel doubt or difficulty as to the sep- 
arate and distinet nature of this second manifestation of 
the Lord’s creative beneficence.! Immediately 

after this miracle our Lord leaves ἃ Ια πα which eens, 
seems to have displayed somewhat striking 

faith, and on which His divine visit could hardly have 
failed to have exercised a permanent spiritual influence, 
for the familiar shores on the opposite side of the lake. 
He crosses over to Magdala,? or perhaps to some village 
close to the high ground in its vicinity, which seems alluded 
to in the designation Dalmanutha,’ as specified by the 


1 On the miracle itself, which Origen (in Matt. Tom. x1. 19), though on some- 
what insufficient reasons, considers as even greater than that of the feeding of 
the five thousand, see Origen, /. c., Hilary, in Matt. Can. xv. p. 542 (Paris, 1631), 
Augustine, Serm. LXxxI. Append. (but apparently rightly regarded by Trench 
as genuine), Vol. v. p. 1902 (ed. Migné), Hook, Serm. on the Miracles, Vol. ii. 
p. 66, Trench, Notes on the Miracles, p. 355. The idea of Hilary (doc. cit.) that 
the former miracle has reference mainly to the Jews, the present miracle to the 
Gentiles, is perhaps not wholly fanciful; the multitude in the present case we 
may reasonably conceive to have been collected nearly entirely from Decapolis, 
and so mainly Gentile; the multitude in the former case, as we have observed, 
was apparently from Capernaum and its vicinity, and probably mainly Jewish. 
Compare p. 190, note 1. 

2 This place is now unanimously regarded by recent travellers as situated, not 
on the eastern side of the lake (Lightfoot, Decas Chorographica Marco premissa, 
cap. v. 1), but on the western side, and at the miserable collection of huts now 
known by the name of ‘el-Medjel.”” See Robinson, Palestine, Vol. ii. p. 397 
(ed. 2), Thomson, Land and the Book, Vol. ii. p. 108, where there is a sketch of 
this forlorn village, and Van de Velde, Memoir, p. 334. It is proper to observe 
that some MSS. and versions of importance (BD; Vulg., Old Lat., al.) read 
Μαγαδάν, and that this reading has been adopted by some recent editors. Of 
this latter place nothing seems to be known; the identification with Megiddo 
(Ewald, Drei Erst. Evv. p. 268, Gesch. Christus’, p. 333) does not seem very 
probable. 

3 The exact locality of Dalmanutha is difficult to trace. It must clearly have 
been near to Magdala, as St. Mark (ch. viii. 10) specifies it as the place into the 
neighborhood of which our Lord arrived in the transit across the lake which 
we are now considering. If we accept the not improbable derivation of 2-17, 
“‘was pointed’ (Wieseler, Chron. Synops. p. 812), we may fix the locality as 
close to or among the cliffs (see Thomson’s sketch) which rise at a short distance 
from Magdala. Porter indentifies Dalmanutha with “ Ain el-Barideh” (Smith, 
Dict. of Bible, Vol. i. p. 381), situated at the mouth of a narrow glen a mile south 
of Magdala, but this appears only to rest on the fact that ruins are found 
there. 


208 THE MINISTRY IN NORTHERN GALILEE. Lect. V. 


second Evangelist. But there His abode was short. The 
evil wrought by the emissaries from Jerusa- 
lem was now only too mournfully apparent. 
No sooner was the Lord arrived than Pharisees, now for 
the first time leagued with Sadducees, as once before they 
had combined with Herodians, come to Him 
with the sceptical demand of a sign from 
heaven. Amid such faithless and probably 
malevolent hearts the Lord vouchsafes not to tarry, but, as 
it would seem immediately, enters the vessel in which He 
had come,’ and with warning words to them, and a special 
caution to His disciples against the leaven of 

Matt. xv. 2 sq. x ¥ ἕ 
Ch. xvi. 63 their teaching, crosses over to Bethsaida-Ju- 

Mark viii. 15. - . 
lias, and there performs the progressively 
developed miracle of healing the blind man to which we 
have recently alluded? 

From thence we trace the Lord’s steps northward to the 
towns and villages in the neighborhood of 

Journey north- . ee 5 
ward to Caesarea the remote city of Cesarea Philippi,® near 
ὙΠ which it is just possible that He might have 
passed in His circuit from Sidon a very few weeks before. 


Ch. viit. 10, 


Mark iii. 6. 
Matt. xvi. 1. 


1The words of St. Mark are here so very distinct (πάλιν ἐμβὰς ἀπῆλϑεν, 
ch. viii. 12) that the supposition of Fritzsche, that our Lord crossed over alone 
to the place where he was questioned by the Pharisees, and that he was after- 
wards joined by His disciples (Matt. xvi. 6), must be pronounced wholly unten- 
able. The disciples are mentioned specially and by themselves (Matt. xvi. 5) 
simply because they alone form the subject of the ἐπελάϑοντο, and because this 
act indirectly gave rise to the warning instructions which follow. 

2 On this miracle, the chief characteristic of which is the very gradual and 
progressive nature of the cure, see the comments of Olshausen above alluded to 
(Comment. Vol. ii. p. 206, Clark), Trench, Notes on the Miracles, p. 359, Hook, 
Serm. on the Miracles, Vol. ii. p. 20. The Bethsaida here mentioned is clearly 
not the village on the western side (comp. Theophylact in loc.), but Bethsaida- 
Julias, by which the Lord would naturally have passed in his northward journey 
to Cesarea Philippi. 

3 This picturesquely placed city, formerly called Panium (Joseph. Antiq. xv. 
10. 3) or Paneas, from a cavern sacred to Pan in its vicinity (see Winer, RWB. 
Vol. i. p. 207, Stanley, Palest. p. 394), received its subsequent name from the 
Tetrarch Philip, by whom it was enlarged and beautified (Joseph. Antiq. XVIII. 
2.1, Bell. Jud. 11.9.1). For a description of its site see Robinson, Palestine, 
Vol. iii. p. 408 sq. (ed. 2), and compare Thomson, Land and the Book, Vol. i. 
Ρ. 844 sq., where there is a sketch of the singular cavern above alluded to. 


Lect. V. THE MINISTRY IN NORTHERN GALILEE. 209 


Of the exact purpose of this journey, or of the special 
events connected with it, we have no certain knowledge, 
though we may reasonably infer, from the incidental men- 
tion of a formal address to the multitude as 
well as to the disciples, that public teaching 
and preaching rather than seclusion was the object of this 
extended circuit. However this may be, with those regions 
we connect three circumstances of considerable moment: 
First, the remarkable profession of faith in Christ as the 
Son of the living God uttered by St. Peter as the ready 
spokesman of the rest of the Apostles, accompanied by the 
remarkable charge on the part of the Lord that they should 
tell it to no man ;! Secondly, and as it would seem almost 
immediately afterwards, the Lord’s first formal prediction 
of His own sufferings and death, — a prediction which 
jarred strangely on the ears of men who now seem to have 
begun to realize more fully the divine nature and Messiah- 
ship of their beloved Master;? Thirdly, the Transfigura- 
tion, which a precise note of time supplied by two Evan- 
gelists fixes as six days from some epoch not giclee orn 
defined, but which the more general comment Mark ie. 2. 
of St. Luke seems to imply was that of the Nea 
above-mentioned confession, and of the discourses associ- 
ated with it. 


Mark xiii. 84. 


1 The true reason for this strict command (διεστείλατο, Matt. xvi. 20), at 
which Origen (in Matt. Tom. xii. 15) appears to have felt some difficulty, would 
seem to be one which almost naturally suggests itself; viz. that our Lord’s time 
was not yet come, and that expectations were not to be roused among those who 
would have sought to realize them in tumults and popular excitement. As Cyril 
of Alexandria well says, ‘‘ He commanded them to guard the mystery by a sea- 
sonable silence, until the whole plan of the dispensation should arrive at a suita- 
ble conclusion.’ — Comment. on St. Luke, Part τ. p. 220. 

2 On this prediction see a good sermon by Horsley, Serm. x1x. Vol. ii. p. 121 
(Dundee, 1810). 

3 The six days are regarded by Lightfoot (Chron. Temp. L111.) as dating from 
the words last spoken by our Lord. This view differs but little from that adopted 
in the text, as the confession of St. Peter seems to stand in close connection with 
the Lord’s announcement of His own sufferings (see Luke ix. 21, 22), and this 
last announcement to have suggested what follows. A more inclusive reference, 
however, as well to the important confession as to what followed, appears, on 
the whole, more simple and more probable. The ὡσεὶ of St. Luke (ch. ix. 28) 


185 


910 THE MINISTRY IN NORTHERN GALILER. Lect. V 


On the mysteries connected with this third event, — the 
Uppers ape glorified aspect of Him whose very garments 
eters wiv shone bright as the snows of the mountain 
on which He was standing; the personal 

presence of Moses and Elias; the divine voice, not only 
of paternal love, but_of exhortation and com- 

minder 5; mand, “Hear ye Him,” and the injunction 
Cog of the Saviour to seal all in silence till the 
Son of Man be risen from the dead, —on all 

this our present limits will not permit me to enlarge. Let 
me only remark, first, as to locality, that there seems every 
reason for fixing the scene of the Transfiguration, not on 
the more southern Tabor, but on one of the lofty spurs of 
the snow-capped Hermon;! secondly, as to its meaning 
and significance, that we may, not without reason, regard 
the whole as in mysterious connection both with St. Peter’s 
profession of faith and with that saddening prediction 
which followed it, and which, it has been specially revealed, 
formed the subject of the mystic converse between the 
Lord and his two attendant saints. That the 
Transfiguration appears generally to have 
had, what may be termed, a theological aspect, and was 
designed to show that the Law and the Prophets had now 
become a part of the Gospel, cannot reasonably be doubted; 
but that it was also designed to confirm the Apostles who 
witnessed it in their faith, and to supply them with spirit- 
ual strength against those hours of suffering and trial 


Inuke ἴα. 31. 


shows that there is no necessity to attempt a formal reconciliation (see Chrysost, 
in loc.) of his note of time with that supplied by St. Matthew and St. Mark. 

1 So rightly Lightfoot (Hor. Hebr. in Marc. ix. 2), Reland (Palest. p. 884 8q.), ὁ 
and apparently the majority of the best recent commentators. The objections of 
Lightfoot to the traditional site, founded on the high improbability of so sudden 
_achange of place, are nearly conclusive; and when we add to this that the sum- 
mit of Tabor was then occupied by a fortified town (see Robinson, Palestine, 
Vol. ii. p. 859), we seem certainly warranted in rejecting a tradition though as 
old as the sixth century. The incidental simile, ὧς χιών, of the graphic St. 
Mark (ch. ix. 3) might well have been supplied to him by one to whom the snow- 
capped mountain suggested it; the reading, however, though fairly probable 
(see Meyer, Komm. tb. Mark. p. 97), is not certain, ὡς χιών not being found in 
two of the four leading manuscripts. 


Lect. V. THE MINISTRY IN NORTHERN GALILEE. 211 


which our Lord had recently predicted, seems pressed upon 
us by the position it occupies in the sacred narrative.’ 
And the. practical faith of the Apostles was verily still 
weak, for, on the very day that followed, their — gy. peating of a 
want of spiritual strength to heal a deaf and = @™onae δον. 
dumb demoniac afforded an opportunity, only a a 
too readily seized, to some Scribes who were present, of 
making it fully known to the gathering multitudes. They 
were in the very act, St. Mark tells us, of questioning with 
the disciples, when the Lord, with His face 
perchance still reflecting the glories of the 
past night,? comes among the disputing and amazed throng. 
After a general rebuke for the want of faith shown by all 
around,’ the Lord commands the hapless lad to be brought 


Mark ix. 14. 


1 This view seems certainly to have been considered probable by Chrysostom, 
who states as a fifth reason why Moses and Elias appeared in attendance on the 
Lord, that it was ‘‘to comfort Peter and those who regarded with fear the 
(Lord’s) suffering, and to raise up their thoughts,’ —in Matt. Hom. 11. 2, Vol. 
vii. p. 6388 (ed. Bened. 2). Comp. Cyril Alex. on St. Luke, Serm. 11. Part 11. p. 
227 (Transl.). The Jast-mentioned writer, it is proper to be observed, also clearly 
states the reason alluded to in the text for the appearance of Moses and Elias 
(ib. p. 228), and so, as we might imagine, does Origen, who briefly but perti- 
nently says, ‘‘ Moses the Law and Elias the Prophets are become one, and united 
with Jesus the Gospel,”’—in Matt. Tom. x11. 48, Vol. iii. p. 565 (ed. Bened.). 
On the subject generally, besides the writers above referred to, see August. Serm. 
LXXxvilt. Vol. v. p. 490 (ed. Migné), Hall, Contempl. 1v. 12, Hacket, vir. Serm. p. 
441 sq. (Lond. 1675), Frank, Serm. x1vit. Vol. ii. p. 818 (A.-C.L.), Lange, Leben 
Jesu, τι. 512, Part τι. p. 902, and Olshausen, Commentary, Vol. ii. p. 228 sq. 
(Clark). The opinion that this holy mystery was a sleeping or waking vision 
(comp. Milman, Hist. of Christian#ty, Vol. i. p. 258), though as old as the days of 
Tertullian (contr. Mare. Iv. 22), is at once to be rejected, as plainly at variance 
with the clear, distinct, objective statements of the three inspired narrators. 

2 This, as Euthymius (second altern.) suggests, may perhaps be inferred from, 
and be the natural explanation of, the strong word ἐξεϑάμβησαν (καὶ γὰρ εἰκὸς 
ἐφέλκεσϑαί Twa χάριν ἐκ τῆς weToMoppadcews), with which St. Mark (ch. ix. 

16), whose account of this miracle is peculiarly full and graphic (see Da Costa, 
The Four Witnesses, p. 78 sq.), describes the feelings of the multitude when they 
beheld our Lord. Comp. also Bengel, in loc. 

3 The αὐτοῖς (Mark ix. 19, Lachm., Tisch.) may refer only to the disciples 
(Meyer), but our Lord’s use of the strong term “ perverted,” as well as “ faith- 
less” (ὦ γενεὰ ἄπιστος καὶ διεστραμμένη), specified both by St. Matthew and 
St. Luke, would seem to show that the address is to both parties, if indeed not 
principally to the disputing Scribes. Perverted feelings were far more at work 
in the συζήτησις of the Scribes than in the exhibition of the imperfect faith of 
the disciples that probably tended to provokeit. See Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr. in 
Matt. xvii. 17. 


212 THE MINISTRY IN NORTHERN GALILEE.  Lecr. Y. 


tohim. The recital of what followed, from the pen of St. 
Mark, is here in the highest degree graphic and sublime. 
The whole scene seems at once to come up before us: the 
paroxysm of demoniacal violence brought on by proximity 
Serine to the Redeemer;! the foaming and wallow- 
Ver. 23 sq. ing sufferer; the retarded cure till the faith 
ἜΝ of the father is made fully apparent; the 
crowding multitude; and then the word of power; the last 
struggle of the departing demon; the prostra- 
tion of the lad after the fierceness of the reac- 
tion, and the upraising hand of the great 
Healer, —all tend to make up one of those striking pic- 
tures which so noticeably diversify the inspired narrative 
of the second Evangelist, and which could have only come 
originally from one who heard and saw and believed.? 
Our Lord’s steps appear now to have been again turned 
southward, through Galilee towards Caper- 
proatintemvonny naum, at which place the next recorded event 
seclusion at Caper- 33 the miraculous payment of the tribute- 
money. If, as seems most natural both from 
the peculiar use of the term (τὰ δίδραχμα), and still more 


Mark ix. 26. 
Ver. 27. 


1 This seems implied in the words καὶ ἰδὼν [sc. 6 daiuoriCduevos; see Meyer, 
in loc.] αὐτόν, τὸ πνεῦμα εὐδὺς ἐσπάραξεν αὐτόν (Mark ix. 20). Something 
similar may be observed in the case of the demoniac in the synagogue at Caper- 
naum (Luke iv. 84: comp. Lect. Iv. p. 156) and that of the Gergesene demoniacs 
(Mark v. 6 sq., Luke viii. 28). Lange (Leben Jesu, τι. 5. 18, Part 11. p. 921) con- 
siders the paroxysm as an evidence that the power of our Lord was already 
working upon the lad, but the view adopted in the text seems more simple and 
natural. For further comments on this miracle, see Origen. in Matt. xiii. 3 sq., 
Vol. iii. p. 574 (ed. Bened.), Cyril Alex. Comment. on St. Luke, Serm. 111. Part 1. 
p. 281 sq. (Transl.), Bp. Hall, Contempl. 1v. 19, Trench, Notes on the Miracles, p. 
362 sq., and the careful exposition of the whole narrative in Olshausen, Commen~ 
tary on the Gospels, Vol. ii. p. 238 sq. (Clark). 

2 It is scarcely necessary to remark that reference is here made to the early 
and universally received tradition that St. Mark’s Gospel was written under the 
guidance of St. Peter, and embodies the substance, if not in some cases the very 
words, of that Apostle’s teaching. The principal testimonies of antiquity on 
which this assertion rests have been already referred to (Lect. 1. p. 29, note 4), to 
which we may add Tertullian contr. Marc. Iv. 5. See further, if necessary, 
Guericke, Linleitung in das N. T. § 39, 2, p. 254, (ed. 2), and the introductory 
comments of Meyer (Komment. p. 3), who seems fairly to admit the truth of the 
ancient tradition. 


Lect. V. THE MINISTRY IN NORTHERN GALILEE. 213 


from the context, we retain the old opinion that it was the 
half-shekel for the temple-service,' we must attribute the 
present tardy demand of a tax levied some months before 
either to the Lord’s frequent absences from Capernaum, or 
to some habit of delayed collection which may very likely 
have prevailed in places remote from Jerusalem, but which, 
from deficient knowledge of local customs, we are unable 
formally to substantiate? The present stay at Capernaum 
was probably short, and, as far as we can infer from the 
Lord’s desire, expressed on His homeward 
journey, to remain unobserved, one of com- 
parative seclusion. He had now to prepare the minds of 
His chosen ones for the heavy trials through which they 
must soon pass, when their Master was delivered up into 
the hands of men, and when their longings for a trium~ 
phant Messiah were to be changed into the avowal of a 
crucified Saviour. On their late return through Galilee, 


Mark ix. 30. 


1 This sum was to be paid every year for the service of the sanctuary (Exod. 
xxx. 138; compare 2 Kings xii. 4,2 Chron. xxiv. 6,9) by every male who had 
attained the age of twenty years (see Winer, RIV B. Art. ‘ Abgaben,” Vol. i. 
Ῥ- 4), and, as we learn from the Mishna (‘“‘Shekalim,” 1, 3), was levied in the 
month Adar. Weseem therefore obliged to have recourse to some supposition 
like that advanced in the text. Compare Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr. in loc. Vol. ii. 
p. 841 sq. (Roterod. 1686), and see Greswell, Disser¢t. xx111. Vol. ii. p. 877, who 
gives some reason for thinking that the tax might have been regularly paid 
about the feast of Tabernacles. The opinion of most of the ancient expositors 
that the reference is here to a tribute which each male had to pay to the Roman 
. government (‘‘tributum Cesareum,” Sedulius) is noticed, not disapprovingly, 

- by Lightfoot, and has been zealously defended by Wieseler (Chron. Synops. 
Ῥ. 264 sq.), but to such a view the words of our Lord (Matt. xvii. 25, 26) seem 
distinctly opposed. What our Lord implies by His question to St. Peter, and 
His comment on the Apostle’s answer, seems clearly this: —as Son of Him to 
whom the temple was dedicated, and indeed as Himself the Lord thereof, He 
had fullest claim to be exempted from the tribute, but still He would not avail 
Himself of His undoubted prerogatives. See Hammond, in loc., whose discus- 
sion of this passage is both clear and convincing. 

2 On the remarkable miracle by which the half-shekel was paid, the design of 
which, we may humbly conceive, was still further to illustrate and substantiate 
what was implied in the address to the Apostle (‘‘in medio actu submissionis 
emicat majestas,”’— Bengel), see the extremely good comments of Trench, 
Notes on the Miracles, p. 872. The older expositors cannot here be referred to 
with advantage, as they nearly all adopt the apparently erroneous opinion above 
alluded to, that it was a tribute which was paid to the Roman government, and 
adapt their comments accordingly. 


914 THE MINISTRY IN NORTHERN GALILEE. Ι8οτ.ΐ. 


when their hearts were dwelling most on their Lord’s 
powers, their elation was checked by a re- 
newal of the sad prediction which they first 
heard near Cesarea Philippi; and now 
again, in the quiet of home, the same holy anxiety may 
be traced to check that pride of spirit which seems to 
have been sensibly manifesting itself in the apostolic com- 
pany. Such manifestations were apparently of a mixed 
character, and were probably due to very different influen- 
ces. On the one hand, we may connect them with a more 
real conviction of their Lord’s divine nature and Messiah- 
ship; on the other hand, we cannot fail to observe that 
they involved much that was merely carnal and worldly. 
This pride of spirit showed itself, as we are especially 
informed, in unbecoming contentions among themselves 
about future preéminence, and led them over- 
hastily to forbid some yet undeclared disciple, 
who was casting out devils in their Master’s name, from 
continuing to do what they might have remembered they 
themselves could not do a week or two before, when an 
agonized father called to them for help, and 


Luke ix. 48. 
Mark iz. 33. 


Luke ix. 46. 


Mark iz. 33. 

Be Bis. , when Scribes stood by and scoffed. Humil- 
ail. Xvi. Ὁ. 

Ver. 10. ity, forbearance, avoidance of all grounds of 


Matt, xviii. 10 sq. ° F 
Matt, xxiii. sg; Offence, love towards their Master’s little 


hipaa ones, gentleness, and forgiveness, the lost 
sheep, and the debtor of the ten thousand talents, were the 


1 It would seem clear from our Lord’s words that the man was no deceiver or 
exorcist, but one who, as Cyril of Alexandria observes, though “πού numbered 
among the holy Apostles, was yet crowned with apostolic powers.” — Comment. 
on St. Luke, Serm. Lv. Part 1. p. 249 (Transl.), where there are some other good 
comments on this very suggestive incident. The connection of thought between 
the notice of this occurrence on the part of St. John and the words of our Lord 
which preceded is, perhaps, more clearly to be traced in St. Mark (ch. ix. 37, 38) 
than in St. Luke (ch. ix. 49). Our Lord’s declaration, ds ἂν ἕν τῶν τοιούτων 
παιδίων δέξηται ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματί pov ἐμέ δέχεται, seems to bring to the 
remembrance of St. John a recent case which appeared at variance with His 
Master’s words, viz. that of one who used the Lord’s name and yet did not 
evince his reception of Him by becoming an avowed disciple. The remembrance, 
coupled perhaps, as Theophylact suggests, with the feeling that their treatment 
of that case had not been right, gives rise to the mention of it to our Lord. 


Lect. V. THE MINISTRY IN NORTHERN GALILEE. 215 


wise and loving lessons which the Lord now specially 
vouchsafed to them in this brief period of tranquillity and 
seclusion. 

And here this portion of our meditations comes to a 
natural and suitable close Yet ere we part let us spend 
a few moments in recapitulation and retrospect. 

We have considered this afternoon what I think we 
cannot but deem a most interesting part of 
our Redeemer’s ministry, and yet one which 
does not perhaps always so distinctly present 
itself to the general reader as other and more sharply de- 
fined portions of the Gospel-history. We have perhaps 
been led to admit the appearance of a gradual enlargement 
of the sphere of our Master’s personal ministries; we have 
journeyed with Him in half-heathen lands; we have seen 
saving mercies extended to those who were not of the 
stock of Abraham; we have seen that divine presence not 
withheld from the dwellers in Decapolis; nay, more, we 
have seemed to see” that priceless blessing vouchsafed. 
to strictly pagan regions, the land of Baal and of Ashto- 
reth; yea, we have beheld, as it were, the Lord’s prophetic 


Conclusion and 
recapitulation. 


1 After this period, as will be seen in the following Lecture, the nature of our 
Lord’s ministerial labors and the character of His missionary journeys appear 
to assume a completely different aspect. The whole wears the character of being 
what St. Luke very fitly terms it, —ai ἡμέραι τῆς ἀναλήψεως (ch. ix. 51). Though 
Jerusalem is the point towards which the journeys tend, and Judza the land to 
which a portion of the ministry is confined, yet the whole period is so marked 
by interruptions and removals, that we can hardly consider it as standing in 
ministerial connection with any former period. See above, Lect. 111. p. 140, 
note 1. 

2 Here, as it has already been observed, it is our duty to speak with caution. 
That our Lord approached that portion of Palestine which is termed the ‘‘ con- 
fines of Tyre” (7a μεδόρια Τύρου, Mark vii. 24,—if with Tischendorf we adopt 
the shorter reading), or, with more latitude, the “‘parts of Tyre and Sidon” 
(τὰ μέρη Τύρου καὶ Σιδῶνος, Matt. xv. 21), is indisputable, but that He was 
pleased actually to cross the frontier rests really upon a probable though con- 
tested reading. See above, p. 203, note 2. Modern writers appear often to have 
felt a difficulty in the supposition that our Lord went beyond the Jewish border 
(comp. Meyer, ἐδ. Matt. xv. 21), but this feeling does not seem to have prevailed 
equally among the earlier writers, some of whom, as Chrysostom, in Matt. Hom. 
Lu. 1, not only speak of our Lord’s having departed εἰς ὁδὸν edva@v, but 
endeavor to account for His having acted contrary to a command which He 
Himself gave to His Apostles. Compare Matt. x. 5. 


e 


216 THE MINISTRY IN NORTHERN GALILEE.  Lecr. V. 


performance of His own subsequent command, that the 
message of mercy should be published not 
only in Judea and Jerusalem, but even to 
the uttermost bounds of the wide heathen world. All 
this we have seen and dwelt upon, — and I trust not dwelt 
upon wholly in vain. To some, perchance, the grouping 
of events which I have ventured to advocate may seem to 
wear the aspect of partial novelty; to others again I may 
have seemed to press unduly characteristics to which they 
may feel disposed to assign a different or a modified ap- 
plication. Be this, however, as it may; whether such a 
survey of this portion of our Lord’s life be regarded as 
plausible or improbable; whether such an endeavor to 
trace the connection of events during a period where 
connection is doubtful be deemed hopeful or precarious, 
matters but little, provided only it may have so far arrested 
the student’s attention as to lead him to examine for him- 
self, patiently and thoughtfully, the harmonies in the nar- 
rative of His Master’s life’ Yea, I will joyfully count all 
as nought, if only I have been enabled by the help of God 
to stir up in others a desire to look more closely into the 
connection of the inspired record, and have helped to 
strengthen the belief that the earnest student may un- 


Hatt. xxviii. 19. 


1 It is much to be feared that the tendency of our more modern study of the 
Gospels is to regard every attempt to harmonize the sacred narrative with 
indifference, if not sometimes even with suspicion. We may concede that recent 
harmonistic efforts, viewed generally, though made with the most loyal feelings 
towards the inspired Word, have in many cases been such as cannot stand the 
test of criticism. Nay, we may go further, and say that the modern tendency to 
study each Gospel by itself, rather than in connection with the rest, is undoubt- 
edly just and right, so long as the object proposed is a more complete realization 
of the view of our Lord’s life as presented by each of the sacred writers, and so 
long as it is considered preparatory to further combinations. All this we may 
willingly concede, and yet we may with justice most strongly urge the extreme 
importance, not only in a mere critical, but even in a devotional point of view, 
of obtaining as complete and connected a view of our Lord’s life and ministry 
as can possibly be obtained from our existing inspired records. And this, let it 
be remembered, can only be done by that patient and thoughtful comparison of 
Scripture with Scripture which now finds such little favor with so many theo- 
logians of our present day. The general principle on which such comparisons 


ought to be made we have already endeavored to indicate. See Lect. I. p. 81 sq. 
> 


Lect. V. THE MINISTRY IN NORTHERN GALILEE. 217 


ceasingly derive from it fresh subjects for meditation, and 
that the seeker may verily hope to find. 

May God move us all to dwell upon such things with an 
ever fresh and ever renewing interest. May His eternal 
Spirit guide us into all truth; and may He, on whose 
blessed words and deeds we have mused this afternoon, 
lovingly draw us, heart and soul and spirit, to Himself. 
O may we really feel that to commune with Him here 
on earth is the most blessed privilege that the Lord has 
reserved for those that love Him; yea, that it is a very 
antepast of the joys of those realms where He now is, — 
a very foretaste of that blessed and final union, when, 
whether summoned forth from the holy calm of Paradise, 
or borne aloft from earth by upbearing clouds,‘ the servants 
of Jesus shall enter into their Redeemer’s presence, and 
dwell with Him, forever and forever. 


1 See 1 Thess. iv. 17, apwaynoduesa ἐν vebéAats,—on which we here pause 
only to make the passing comment, that the sublime picture the inspired words 
present is commonly missed by the general reader, and perhaps obscured by the 
eollocaticn ef words and insertion of the artitle in our autherized version. 
The Greek text appears to imply that the clouds are, as it were, the triumphal 
chariots in which the holy living, and, as it would seem also, the holy dead, will 
be borne aloft to meet their coming Lord. See Commentary on1 Thess. p. 66. 


19 


LECTURE VI. 


THE JOURNEYINGS TOWARD JERUSALEM. 


AND JESUS SAID UNTO HIM, FOXES HAVE HOLES, AND BIRDS OF THE AIR 
HAVE NESTS; BUT THE SON OF MAN HATH NOT WHERE TO LAY HIS 
HEAD. — St. Luke ix. 58. 


TueEsE mournful and affecting words, which were uttered 

nearly at the commencement of the period 

ten at he mus, Which we are now about to consider, form, 

red terete + think, a very suitable text for our present 
meditations. 

The scene now strikingly changes. Last Sunday we 
had before us the deeply interesting record of missionary 
journeys into heathen and half-heathen lands. We seemed 
to follow our Lord’s steps to the very gates of idolatrous 
Sidon,’ we beheld His miracles in half-Gentile Decapolis, 
we traced His deeds of mercy in the remote uplands of 
Galilee, and we again heard His loving words and touch- 
ing parables in the short seclusion? in His earthly home at 
Capernaum. But now that earthly home is to receive Him 
no more. Six months of anxious wanderings in Judea 
and the lands on the further side of Jordan, interrupted 
only by brief sojourns in remote frontier-towns, now claim 


1 See, however, the observations on this point, p. 215, note 2. 

2 How long our Lord remained at Capernaum after His return from the dis- 
trict of Cesarea Philippi and the northern parts of Galilee is in no way specified. 
As, however, St. Luke passes at once from his notice of the contention among 
the Apostles (which we know took place before they had actually come to Caper- 
naum; see Mark ix. 83) to the journey of our Lord to Jerusalem, we are perhaps 
correct in supposing that the stay was short. It is not improbable that the 
approaching celebration of the feast of Tabernacles led to the return from th¢ 
north, and induced our Lord to come back to Capernaum, not only as being 
His temporary home, but as being a convenient starting-point for the journey te 
Jerusalem. See above, Lect. 111. p. 121, and note 2. 


Lect. VI. THE JOURNEYINGS TOWARD JERUSALEM. * 219 


our attention ;— six months of ceaseless activities and un- 
resting labor, of mighty deeds and momentous teaching, 
yet six months, if not of actual flight, yet of ever-recurring 
avoidance of implacable and murderous designs’ that were 
now fast approaching their appalling and impious climax. 

What I have just said serves indirectly to define the 
limits of our present section. These, how- 
ever, for the sake of clearness, I will specify jresn action ἐν 
more exactly, as commencing with the Lord’s 
journey in October to the feast of Tabernacles, and con- 
cluding with His arrival at Bethany six days before the 
Passover. 

This period, I need scarcely remind you, presents to the 
harmonist and chronologer difficulties soun- | 
usually great,? that it has been frequently chronological aigi- 
considered a matter of simple impossibility feel 
to adjust in their probable order the events which belong 
to this portion of the narrative. It has been urged that 


1 Τὸ would seem probable that a resolution to kill our Redeemer had been 
secretly formed among the leading members of the hierarchical party at Jerusa- 
lem, perhaps some months before the present time. If we are correct in the 
view we have taken in Lect. 1v., that the machinations against our Lord in Gali- 
lee were due to emissaries from Jerusalem, it does not seem wholly improbable 
that the vengeful feelings of the Pharisaical party, which first definitely showed 
themselves at the feast of Purim (see above, p. 121), had been from time to time 
fostered by these emissaries, and were now issuing in designs so far matured as 
to have become the subject of frequent comment, and of almost general noto- 
riety. See especially John vii. 25. It is at the beginning of the present period 
that we meet with the first open and formal attempt on the part of the authori- 
ties to lay their sacrilegious hands on the person of our Lord. See John vii. 82, 
where it will be observed that tle imperfectly organized attempt noticed two or 
three verses before (ἐζήτουν, ver. 80) is recommenced under official sanction. 
Compare Meyer, Komment. tib. Joh. p. 236 (ed. 8), and Greswell, Dissert. xxx. 
Vol. ii. p. 489. 

2 The precise nature of these difficulties are explained below, p. 221. Some 
considerations on the nature of that portion of St. Luke’s Gospel with which 
these difficulties are chiefly connected will be found in Greswell, Dissert. XxXI. 
Vol. ii. p. 517 sq., but the results at which the learned writer arrives, viz. that Luke 
ix. 51—xviii. 14 refers to our Lord’s last journey to Jerusalem, and that to doubt 
it “15 the perfection of scepticism and incredulity ” (p. 540), are such as may be 
most justly called into question. Some useful observations on this portion of 
the Gospel narrative will be found in Robinson, Harmony of Gospels, p. 92 
(Tract Society). Comp. also the remarks of Dr. Thomson in Smith’s Dictionary 
of the Bible, Vol. i: p. 1061. 


220 © THE JOURNEYINGS TOWARD JERUSALEM. Lecr. VI. 


the Evangelist, to whom we owe the recital of so many of 
the circumstances and discourses which belong to this 
period, has here failed in his deliberately an- 
nounced design of relating in order? the 
events of his Master’s life, and has here blended in one in- 
coherent narrative the distinctive features and elements 
of the last three journeys of our Redeemer to Judéa and 
Jerusalem.? We may, indeed, be thankful to feel and know 
that such opinions, which in fact carry with them their 
own condemnation, are now beginning to belong to the 
past. We may with good reason rejoice that of late years 
a far more reverent as well as critical spirit has been at 
work among the echronologers and expositors of the sacred 
histories. We may gladly observe that order and connec- 
tion have been found where there was once deemed to be 
only confusion and incoherence, — that the inspired narra- 
tives are regarded no longer as discrepant but as self-ex- 
planatory, — and that honest investigation is showing more 
and more clearly that what one inspired writer has left 
unrecorded another has often supplied, with an incidental 
preciseness of adjustment which is all the more convinc- 
ing from being seen and felt to be undesigned. All this it 


Luke i. 3 


1 Some comments on the apparent meaning of this and other expressions 
used by St. Luke in the introduction to his Gospel will be found above, Lect. Iv. 
p- 149, note 1. 

2 See, for instance, the very sweeping and objectionable remarks of De Wette, 
who speaks of the necessity of recognizing in this portion of the Evangelist’s 
record ‘teine unchronologische und unhistorische Zusammenstellung” (Zrkl. 
des Luk. p. 76), and conceives that it resulted from St. Luke’s having had a cer- 
tain amount of matter before him relating to our Lord’s ministry which he did 
not know how otherwise to dispose of. The opinion of Schleiermacher, and after 
him of Olshausen, Neander, and others, that we have in this portion of St. 
Luke’s Gospel the accounts of two journeys, the one terminating at the Feast of 
Dedication, the second at the Passover, is at first sight more reasonable. It will 
be found, however, to involve assumptions, viz. (a) that the two narratives of 
the two journeys were blended by some one ignorant of the exact circum- 
stances, and in this state inserted by St. Luke in his Gospel (Schleierm.), or (Ὁ) 
that St. Luke re-wrote the accounts, and himself helped to blend them (compare 
Olshausen, Commentary, Vol. ii. p. 282 sq.), which must be pronounced by every 
sober interpreter to be as untenable in principle as they will be found on exam- 
ination to be unsupported by facts. 


Lect. VI. THE JOURNEYINGS TOWARD JERUSALEM. pe κα 


is cheering to feel and know;;}? yet still I must not, and 
ought not, to disguise from you that the difficulties in our 
present portion of the Gospel-history — difficulties, how- 
ever, which I firmly believe have been of late correctly 
cleared up —are still such as must sensibly strike the gen- 
eral reader, and must claim from me a few, yet only a few, 
explanatory and introductory comments. 

The facts are these. Above three hundred verses of St. 
Luke’s Gospel, or from the end of the ninth 
to nearly the middle of the eighteenth chap- 
ter, clearly belong to the period that we are 
now about to consider,’ but stand, so to speak, isolated and 
alone. The two other Synoptical Gospels scarcely supply 
more than two or three parallel notices, but after the mid- 
dle of the eighteenth chapter again become distinct and 
explicit, and again present the most exact coincidences 
with the narrative of the third Evangelist,’ — coincidences 


Precise nature of 
these difficulties. 


1 We may observe, by way of example, the working of these sounder princi- 
ples in the manner in which the peculiar portion of St. Luke’s Gospel to which 
we have been alluding is discussed in the best recent commentaries. See, for 
instance, Meyer, Komment. wb. Luk. p. 326 sq. (ed. 3), and, in our own country, 
Alford, on Luke ix. 51, both of whom, though too scrupulously declining every 
attempt to reconcile the narrative with that of St. John, clearly recognize 
(Meyer in a less degree) its unity and historical importance. The assertion, how- 
ever, of the latter writer, that St. Luke ‘‘has completely, by his connecting 
words in many places, disclaimed” any chronological arrangement in this por- 
tion of his Gospel, seems certainly much too strong. The utmost that can be 
said is, that the absence of notes of time precludes our determining the precise 
epoch at which the events specified took place, and the intervals of time between 
them, but that we have no reason whatever to doubt that in nearly all cases the 
right sequence is preserved. In other words, though we have no chronology in 
this portion of the third Evangelist’s Gospel, we have no reason to doubt that 
we have order. On this distinction see Ebrard, Kritik der Evang. Gesch. § 11, p. 
46, and compare Wieseler, Chron. Synops. p. 327 sq. 

2 A few sections may perhaps belong to an earlier portion of the narrative, 
e. g. Luke xi. 17 sq. compared with Mark iii. 20 sq., Luke xiii. 18 sq. with Mark 
iv. 80 sq., if indeed it be not more probable that the substance of both the above 
sections was repeated on two different occasions. Compare Wieseler, Chron. 
Synops. p. 288. 

3 The first point of resumed connection between St. Luke and the first and sec- 
ond Evangelists is apparently to be fourd in Luke xvii. 11 compared with Matt. 
xix. 1, 2, and Mark x. 1,—St. Luke alluding to the journey (from, Ephraim; see 
John xi. 54) through Samaria and Galilee, and St. Matthew and St. Mark the 
continuation of it through Perea to Judea and Jerusalem. The more distinct 


19* 


222, THE JOURNEYINGS TOWARD JERUSALEM. Lecr. VI. 


as striking as the former absence of them and the former 
comparative silence. But this is not all: these three 
hundred verses of St. Luke’s Gospel have somewhat 
remarkable characteristics. They are very rich in their 
recital of our Lord’s discourses, especially of those which 
were suggested by passing occurrences, but they contain 
but few of those notices of time and place’ which we so 
naturally associate with the narrative of the historian 
Evangelist. 

Now what would be the opinion of any calm, reasonable, 
and reverent man upon the phenomenon thus presented to 
him? Why clearly this. In the first place, he would at 
once conclude that here was but another of the almost 
countless instances which the holy Gospels present to us 
of the mercy and wisdom of Almighty God,.whose Eter- 
nal Spirit moved one Evangelist to relate what the others 
had left unrecorded.? In the second place, he would here 


point of union, however, is the narrative of the young children being brought 
to our Lord, which begins ch. xviii. 15, and stands in strict parallelism with 
Matthew xix. 18 sq. and Mark x. 13 sq. After this, for the few remaining sec- 
tions, the narrative of the Synoptical Evangelists proceeds harmoniously onward 
to the close of the portion now before us. Comp. the table in Wieseler, Chron. 
Synops. p. 381. 

1 This remark will be best verified by an inspection of the chapters in question. 
We may, however, pause to specify the following very undefined notices of 
chronological connection: μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα, ch. x.1; καὶ ἰδού, ch. x. 25; ἐγένετο 
δέ, ch. x. 88; καὶ ἐγένετο, ch. xi. 1; simply Καί, ch. xi. 14, xiii. 22; ἐν δὲ τῷ 
λαλῆσαι, ch. xi. 87; ἐν ois, ch. xii. 1; εἶπεν δέ, ch. xii. 22; and comp. xiii. 6, 
xvi. 1, xvii. 1, xviii. 1; καὶ ἐγένετο, ch. xiv.1; καὶ εἰσερχομένου αὐτοῦ εἴς τινα 
κώμην, ch. xvii. 12. The only really definite expressions in reference to time are 
apparently confined to ch. xiii. 1, 31, and even these are of little use to us, owing 
to the events with which they stand in connection themselves being undefined 
as totime. With regard to place, for examples of a similarly undefined charac- 
ter, compare ch. x. 88, xi. 1, xiii. 10, 22, xiv. 1, xvii. 12. It may be admitted that 
we can find instances of a similar absence of definite notices of time and place 
in other portions of St. Luke’s Gospel, but in none so regularly and continu- 
ously as in the portion now before us. See the table in Ebrard, Aritik der Ev. 
Gesch. § 82, p. 181 sq. 

2 The supplementary relations in which the earlier-written Gospels appear to 
stand to the later-written are noticed at some length by Greswell, Dissert. 1. 
Vol. i. p. 15. The popular objection, that we have no intimations in the sacred 
records themselves by which we can infer where one is to be regarded defective 
and others supplementary to it, is considered and reasonably answered in the 
Appendix, Dissert. 1. Vol. iii. p. 821 sq, 


Lect. VI. THE JOURNEYINGS TOWARD JERUSALEM. 223 


recognize, on the one hand, an indirect verification of that 
careful research which was openly professed by the third 
Hvangelist ;* and, on the other, a direct proof of that faith- 
fulness that made him adopt less special notices of the strict 
connection of events when the sources of information, oral 
or written, to which he had been moved to refer, had not 
fully or distinctly supplied them. 
Now suppose such a reasonable thinker had observed, as 
he could scarcely fail to have observed, that δὶ 
mparison of 


the fourth Evangelist, true to the supplemen- sis portion of St. 
tary character, which we seem to have very farce st yom 
sufficient grounds for ascribing to several por- 

tions of his Gospel,? had supplied three distinct chronolog- 
ical notices of three journeys taken toward if not all actually 
fo Jerusalem during this period we are about to consider,® 
would he not at once turn back to St. Luke to discover 
some trace, however slight, of journeys so clearly defined 
by another Evangelist? And would he turn back there in 
vain? Would he find no break in the narrative, no indica- 
tions of journeys to Jerusalem beside that with which this 
portion of his Gospel commences? Most assuredly not. 


1 This seems a fair representation of what the Evangelist designed to imply by 
παρηκολουδηκότι avwSev πᾶσιν ἀκριβῶς (ch. 1. 8). See the comments on this 
passage in Lect. rv. p. 149, note 1. The view of the ancient Syriac translator, 
according te which πᾶσε is masculine, and παρηκολουΐ. implies proximity and 
personal attendance {see also von Gumpach in Kitto, Journal of Sacred Lit. for 
1849, No. vuir. p. 301), deserves attention from its antiquity, but is apparently 
rightly rejected by all the best modern expositors. 

2 See above, Lect. 1. p. 30, note 3, and compare the illustrations supplied by 
Greswell, Dissert. Xx1.—xxu1l. Vol. ii. p. 196 sq., Dissert. xxx. Vol. ii. p. 482 sq: 
Comp. also Ebrard, Kritik der Ev. Gesch. § 87, p. 150 sq. 

3 The objection that if we include our Lord’s visit to Jerusalem at the feast of 
Dedication we might seem to have four journeys to Jerusalem (see the synopsis 
of Lampe), is readily removed by observing that the way in which St. John men- 
tions the festival and our Lord’s appearance at it (John x. 22), combined with 
the fact that there is no previous mention of any departure from Judza (con- 
trast John x. 40), leads us certainly to suppose that during the interval between 
the feast of Tabernacles and that of the Dedication our Lord confined His min. 
istry to Judza. See p. 256. If this be so, the visit to the latter festival is not to be 
regarded as due to a separate or second journey, but only as a sequel of the first. 
Comp. Bengel’s more correct synopsis, Gnomon, Vol. i. p. 851, and see Wieseler, 
Chron. Synops. p. 318, note 1. 


» 


224 THE JOURNEYINGS TOWARD JERUSALEM. Lect. VL 


Instead of all seeming, as it might once have seemed, the 
confused recital of the circumstances of but one journey, 
he would now be led to identify the journey of the ninth 
chapter of St. Luke with the journey to the feast of Tab- 
ernacles specified by St. John;! he would again have his 
attention arrested by the break a little past the middle of 
the thirteenth chapter, and would see how 
strikingly it agreed with St. John’s notice of 
the second journey toward Jerusalem, that reached no fur- 
ther than Bethany ;? and, lastly, he could not fail to pause 
at the special notice of a third journey towards the begin- 


Ver. 22. 


PSA ning of the seventeenth chapter, and would 
Ch.exi.1. naturally connect it, not only with the express 
A. statements of St. Matthew and St. Mark, but 


with the previous retirement to Ephraim so distinctly spe- 
cified by St. John.* Such would be the result of a fair and 


1 The main argument for the identity of the journey specified John vii. 10 with 
that mentioned Luke ix. 51 rests on the two facts, (a) that the journey specified 
by the third Evangelist was through Samaria (Luke ix. 52), and (δ) that the 
inhabitants of that country at once inferred that our Lord’s destination was 
Jerusalem (ver. 53). The first of these facts is in complete harmony with the 
avoidance of observation specified in John vii. 10; the second is in equally com- 
plete harmony with St. John’s statement of the object of that journey (ἀνέβη 
εἰς Thy ἑορτήν, ib. ver. 10). It was the knowledge on the part of the Samari- 
tans that the feast of Tabernacles was now going on that made them so readily 
notice and recognize the direction to which the Lord’s face was now turned. 
See below, p. 249. The main objection against the identity lies in St. Luke’s 
rough note of time, ἐν τῷ συμπληροῦσδαι Tas ἡμέρας τῆς ἀναλήψεως (ch. ix. 
51), which, it is urged, the use of the peculiar term ἀνάληψις clearly shows can 
only belong to a last journey (see Meyer, in loc., and compare Greswell, Dissert. 
xxx1. Vol. ii. p. 522). Why, however, may not the very general term, ai ἡμέραι 
τῆς ἀναλήψεως ὃ καιρὺς 6 apopiodels μέχρι τῆς ἀναλήψεως, Euthym.) suitably 
apply to the period between the conclusion of the regular ministry of our Lord 
and the last Passover, —a period which was ushered in by special prophecies of 
such an ἀνάληψις (Mark ix. 30), and which throughout wears the character of 
being a season of preparation for that final issue? Compare p. 215, notel. The 
interpretation of the words proposed by Wieseler (Chron. Synops. Ὁ. 824. Com- 
pare Lange, Leben Jesu, 11. 5.12, Part 1. p. 1054), --- {πὸ days of His having 
found acceptance with men,” is contrary to the New Testament use of the verb 
(Mark xvi. 19, Acts i. 2, xi. 22, 1 Tim. iii. 16), and completely untenable. 

2 For further considerations in favor of the connection of Luke xiii. 22 with 
St. John’s notice of our Lord’s withdrawal πέραν Tov Ἰορδάνου (ch. x. 40), and 
the same Apostle’s notice of the journey to Bethany (ch. xi. 1), see below, p. 262 
sq., and compare Wieseler, Chron. Synops. p. 821. 

8 With John xi. 54 we seem rightly to connect Luke xvii. 11, διήρχετο διὰ 


Lect. VI. THE JOURNEYINGS TOWARD JERUSALEM. 225 


reasonable investigation into the narrative of St. Luke, — 
and such too is the result arrived at in part by the learned 
Lightfoot, and more distinctly by a recent investigator, 
whose elaborate treatise on the chronology of the Gospel 
history may justly be classed among the most successful 
efforts in that department of theology that have appeared 
in our own times.” 

If we rest satisfied with this result, and I verily believe 
it will commend itself to us each step we ge ΜΈΣΣ 
advance forward in the history, we have atove  considera- 
before us, to speak broadly and generally, i 
the record of the circumstances connected with three jour- 
neys to or toward Jerusalem, the first being at the feast of 
Tabernacles, the second three months or more afterwards, 
the last a short time before the ensuing Passover.? 


μέσου Σαμαρείας καὶ Γαλιλαίας, where the confirmatory hint supplied by 
the notice of the direction of the journey should not be overlooked. See below, 
p. 269, note 5. 

1 The following appears to be the arrangement of this able harmonist as indi- 
cated in his Chronica Temporum (Vol. ii. p. 86 sq. Roterod. 1686): (1) he connects 
(sect. 57) Luke ix. 51 and John vii. 10; (2) he places (sect. 60) Luke x. 17—xiii. 28 
before John ix. 1—x. 42; (3) he refers Luke xvii. 11 to our Lord’s last journey to 
Jerusalem, connecting it, however, with John x. 42 rather than with John xi. 
55. See sect. 62. The main differences between this and the view adopted in 
the text are the identification of Luke xiii. 22 with the visit to Jerusalem at the 
feast of Dedication (see above, p. 223, note 3), and the reference to John ix. 1— 
x. 21 to the visit at the feast of Dedication rather than, as seems more natural, 
to that at the feast of Tabernacles. Contrast Wieseler, Chron. Synops. p. 829. 

2 It is scarcely necessary to observe that reference is here made to the Chrono- 
logische Synopse der Vier Evangelien of Karl Wieseler, —a treatise of which the 
importance has bean already commented on. See p. 139, note 4. It is to be 
regretted that in a few important passages Wieseler has been tempted to pro- 
pound novel interpretations (see above, p. 224, note 1), which have been almost 
universally pronounced to be untenable. This has led hasty readers to rate this 
able work much below its real merits. Compare Kitto, Journal of Sacr. Lit. for 
1850, No. x1. p. 75. 

8 The date of the commencement of the second and third journeys and their 
duration can only be fixed roughly and approximately. The data for forming a 
calculation are as follow. The feast of the Dedication took place on the twenty- 
fifth of Kislev (Dec. 20), and lasted eight days (Joseph. Antig. x11. 7.7; compare 
Jahn, Archeol. § 359); at this, as we know from St. John, our Lord was present. 
Very soon afterwards our Lord retires to the Perean Bethany (John x. 40), and 
there abides long enough for many to believe on Him (John x. 42). At the end 
of this stay the second journey towards Jerusalem (Luke xiii. 22; compare John 
xi. 7) is commenced, which for the time terminates at Bethany, but which, 


226 THE JOURNEYINGS TOWARD JERUSALEM. Lect. VI. 


Let us now proceed to a brief but orderly recital of the 
recorded events. 
The last circumstance on which we dwelt was the return 
of our Lord to Capernaum after His long 
Brief stay at Ca- sees . : - . 
pernaum: world Missionary journeys, and His impressive 
Lont's brettren. “teaching to His Apostles during that brief 
period of apparent tranquillity and seclusion.! 
That time of holy rest seems soon to have come to an end. 
The feast of Tabernacles was nigh at hand, and the Lord’s 
brethren,” who now come prominently before us, and who, 
in spite of their practical unbelief,? appear to have dis- 
tinctly shared in similar feelings of pride and expectancy 
to those which we seem to have already traced in the 
Apostles, now urge Him to display His wonder-working 
powers amid circumstances of greater pub- 
licity, — to challenge and to command adhe- 
sion, and that not in remote Galilee, but in the busy 


John vii. 8. 


owing to the machinations of the Jews (John xi. 47), is very shortly afterwards 
directed to Ephraim (John xi. 54). From this place the third journey is com- 
menced, which appears to have extended through Samaria, Galilee, and Perza, 
and to have been temporarily arrested at Bethany, near Jerusalem, six days 
before the Passover, or, in the year in question (A. U. Cc. 783), somewhere about 
April 1. If we now reckon backward, and assign at least a fortnight to this 
journey, a month or five weeks to the stay at Ephraim, and a week or more to 
the second journey, — which, though much shorter than the third, seems at first 
to have been leisurely performed (comp. Luke xiii. 22, and see below, p. 262, 
note 2),— we shall then leave about a month or five weeks for the stay in the 
neighborhood of the Perean Bethany. The second journey, according to this 
view, would have commenced about the beginning of February, and the third 
about the middle of March. 

1 See Lect. v. p. 213, and comp. p. 218, note 2. 

2 For a brief consideration of the probable meaning of this much contested 
appellation, see above, p. 100, note 2, and for examples of the various senses of 
the word ἀδελφὸς, according to Hebrew usage, see Greswell, Dissert. xvi1. Vol. 
ii. p. 117. 

3 That the words οὐδὲ ἐπίστευον (John xiii. 5), though probably implying a 
disbelief in our Lord’s Godhead (ὡς eis Θεόν, Euthym.), did not imply a disbe- 
lief in His mighty works, and perhaps not even in His claims to be regarded a 
divinely accredited teacher, seems clear from the context. See ver. 8, and com- 
pare Lect. 11. p.101, note. Chrysostom (in Joc.) rightly remarks that the address, 
though marked by bitterness, still clearly came from friends (δοκεῖ ἡ ἀξίωσις 
δῆϑεν φίλων εἶναι ; contrast Euthym. in loc.). We may pause, however, before 
we agree with that able expositor in his further remark that James the brother 
of the Lord was one of the speakers. Compare Greswell, Dissert. xv11. Vol. ii. 
Ρ' 116. 


Lect. VI. THE JOURNEYINGS TOWARD JERUSALEM. 07 


thoroughfares of Jerusalem,’ and among the thronging 
worshippers in its temple courts. The apparent contra- 
diction that has here been found between our Lord’s words 
and His subsequent acts vanishes at once when we pause 
to observe that here, as so often in the narrative of the 
fourth Evangelist, He is revealed to us as the reader of the 
heart, and as answering its thoughts and imaginations, 
rather than the words by which those feelings were dis- 
guised.? It is to the spirit and meaning of this worldly 
and self-seeking request, rather than to the mere outward 
terms in which it was couched, that the Lord answers His 
brethren, even as He had once before answered a mother’s. 
tacit importunity, that “His time is not yet 
come,” and that He goeth not up to the 
feast. He does indeed not go up to the feast in the sense 
in which those carnal-minded men presumed to counsel 
Him. He joins now no festal companies; He takes now 
no prominent part in festal solemnities;* if He be found in 


John vii. 6. 


1 The exact meaning of the address of our Lord’s brethren, especially of the 
confirmatory clause (οὐδεὶς yap ἐν κρυπτῷ τι ποιεῖ Kal (ητεῖ αὐτὸς ἐν παῤῥη- 
σίᾳ εἶναι, John vii. 4), is not at first sight perfectly clear. What the brethren 
appear to say is this: ‘‘ Go to Judza, that Thy disciples, whether dwelling there 
or come there to the festival, may behold the works which Thou art doing here 
in comparative secrecy; it is needful that Thou seek this publicity if true to Thy 
character, for no man doeth his works in secret, and seeks personally (αὐτός) to 
be before the world, as Thou, who claimest to be the Messiah, must necessarily 
desire to be. Hidden though wondrous works and personal acceptance by the 
world at large are things not compatible.’”» The whole is the speech of shrewd 
and worldly-minded, but not treacherous or designing men. Compare Liicke in 
loc. Vol. ii. p. 189 (ed. 3). ἃ 

2 See above, Lect. 1. p. 44, note 3, and compare p. 125, note 2. The supposition 
of Meyer, that our Lord here states His intention and afterwards alters it, is 
neither borne out by the context nor rendered admissible by any parallel case 
(Matt. xv. 26 is certainly not in point) in the whole sacred narrative. The mis- 
erable effort of Porphyry to fix on our Lord the charge of fraudulent represen- 
tations and deliberate inconstancy is noticed and refuted by Jerome, contr. 
Pelag. τι. 6. 

3 That this is the true meaning of the words was apparently felé by the earlier 
expositors (οὐ yap ἀναβαίνει συνεορτάσων νουϑετήσων δὲ μᾶλλον, Cyril Alex. 
in loc. p. 404 B), and has been distinctly asserted by many of the sounder modern 
writers. So rightly Luthardt (‘‘ nicht an diesem Feste wird er so wie sie meinen 
hinauf-und einziehn in Jerusalem’? — Das Johann Evang. Part τι. p. 77), Stier 
(Disc. of our Lord, Vol. v. p. 242, Clark), and somewhat similarly, Liicke in loc. 
The explanation of De Wette and Alford, that the true reading οὐκ ἀναβαίνω is 


228 THE JOURNEYINGS TOWARD JERUSALEM. Lect. VI. 


Jerusalem and in the courts of His Father’s house, it is 
not as the wonder-worker or Messianic king, but as the 
persecuted Redeemer, who will yet again brave the malice 
of Scribe and Pharisee that He may still fulfil his mission 
to those lost sheep of the house of Israel whom the festival 
may gather together. 
Thus it was, that, perhaps, scarcely before the very day 
on which the festival actually commenced, 
edlen thowk sa, our Lord, and, as the sequel seems to show, 
maria, His Apostles, directed their steps to Jerusa- 
woo Tue & lem, but, as it were, in secret. Their way, as 
we might have expected, and as the appar- 
ently coincident notice of St. Luke distinctly substantiates, 
lay through Samaria. But Samaria now 
receives not this Saviour as it had received 
Him nine months before. Then the Lord’s 
face was turned towards Galilee, now it is turned towards 


Ch. ix. 52. 
John iv. 40. 


practically equivalent to the οὕπω ἀναβαίνω of the received text, is perhaps 
defensible on the ground that the succeeding οὔπω may be thought to reflect a 
kind of temporal limitation on the foregoing negative, but seems neither so sim- 
ple nor so natural as that which has been adopted in the text. 

1 That our Lord did not arrive at Jerusalem till the middle of the feast is cer- 
tainly not positively to be deduced from John vii. 14, which may only imply that 
up to that day, though in Jerusalem, He remained in concealment (Meyer). 
Still the use of the term ἀνέβη, especially viewed in connection with its use a 
few verses before, seems to involve the idea of a preceding journey, and may 
possibly have been chosen as serving to imply that on His arrival our Lord pro- 
eeeded at once to the Temple, —that it was, in fact, the true goal of the present 
journey. Cyril of Alexandria calls attention to the word ἀνέβη (οὐχ ἁπλῶς 
εἰσῆλδεν, ἀλλὰ ἀνέβη, φησίν, εἰς τὸ ἱερόν, in toc. p. 409 8), but apparently 
refers it to the solemn and formal nature of the entry. 

2 Even if we hesitate to regard the journey mentioned by St. Luke (ch. ix. 51) 
as identical with that here specified by St. John, which, indeed, as we have 
shown above, we seem to have no suflicient reason for doing, we can scarcely 
doubt that the journey was through Samaria. By this route our Lord would be 
able to make his journey more completely ὡς ἐν κρυπτῷ (John vii. 10), and 
would also apparently be able to reach Jerusalem more quickly than if He had 
taken the usual and longer route through Perwa. See above, Lecture m1. p. 121, 
note 2. The assertion of Meyer (in Joc.), that ὧς ἐν κρυπτῷ simply implies that 
our Lord joined no festal caravan, but affords no indication of the way He was 
pleased to take, may justly be questioned. If our Lord was accompanied by 
His Apostles, which, from St. John’s Gospel alone, seems certainly more proba 
ble than the contrary, could a company of thirteen have travelled ὧς ἐν κρυπτῷ 
by any but a little-frequented route? 


Lect. VI. THE JOURNEYINGS TOWARD JERUSALEM. 229 


Jerusalem; then His journey was made more leisurely, 
now it is in haste; then there was no apparent reason why 
the route through Samaria had been chosen rather than 
any other; now it is self-evident. The peculiar season of 
the year at once reminds the jealous Samaritan whither 
those hurried steps were being directed, and tells him 
plainly enough what must be the true reason which now 
has brought that hastening company through their com- 
monly avoided land. So when messengers 
are sent forward to expedite the journey, 
and make preparations for the coming Master, He whom 
the city of Sychar had once welcomed is now 
rejected by the churlish village that lay in 
His way. The Sons of Thunder! would have had fire 
called down from heaven, but their intemperate zeal is 
rebuked by their Lord, yea, and practically rebuked by a 
striking proof that even now Samaria was not utterly 
faithless. One at least, there seems to have been,? who 


Luke ix. 52. 


Ver. 53. 


1 The incident mentioned in this passage deserves particular attention as tend- 
ing to correct a very popular and prevailing error in reference to the character 
of one of the actors. Does the present passage, especially when combined with 
Luke ix. 49 and Mark x. 88, and further illustrated by the most natural and 
obvious interpretation of the term ‘Son of Thunder” (Mark iii. 17; see Meyer 
in loc. p. 39, at all justify our regarding St. John as the apostolic type of that 
almost feminine softness and meditative tranquillity (see Olshausen, Comment. on 
the Gospels, Vol. iii. p. 304) which is so popularly ascribed to him? Is it not 
much more correct to say that the notices of the beloved Apostle recorded in 
the Gospels, when estimated in connection with the name given to him by his 
Master, present to us the scarcely doubtful traces of an ardent love, zeal, and 
confidence (Mark x. 38), which, like the thunder to which the character was 
compared, was sometimes shown forth in outspokenness and outburst? This 
characteristic ardor, this glowing while loving zeal, is not obscurely evinced in 
the outspokenness and honest denunciation of falsehood and heresy that marks 
the first, and, even more clearly, the short remaining epistles of this inspired 
writer. Compare 2 John 10,3 John 10. The misconception of the character of 
the Apostle is apparently of early date, and perhaps stands in some degree of 
connection with his own simple yet affecting notice of the love and confidence 
vouchsafed towards him by our Redeemer during the Last Supper (John xiv. 
25). Let us not forget, however, that he, who in memory of this was lovingly 
called 6 ἐπιστήδιος by the early Church, was called by his own Master the “‘ Son 
of Thunder.” The patristic explanation of this latter title will be found in Sui- 
cer, Thesaur. s. v. βροντή, Vol. i. p. 712 sq., but is not sufficiently distinctive. 

2 It seems proper here to speak with caution, as the present case, and that of 
the man who, when called by our Lord, requested leave first to go and bury his 


20 


230 THE JOURNEYINGS TOWARD JERUSALEM. Lect. VL 


was ready to cast in his lot with that travel-worn company, 
and to him it was answered in the words of 
our text, and with a striking and pathetic 
appropriateness, that though the creatures that His own 
divine hands had made had their allotted places of shelter 
and rest, “the Son of Man had not where to lay His head.” 
The Lord soon reaches Jerusalem, where it would seem 
ei ΣΟ Ἐμὲ He was partially expected, and about the 
val and preaching middle of the feast enters the Temple, and 
at Jerusalem. yo 
teaches in its now crowded courts. And that 
teaching was not in vain. Though some of 
the mere dwellers in Jerusalem! paused only to speculate 
on the policy of their spiritual rulers in permitting One 
whom they were seeking to kill now to speak 
with such openness and freedom, the effect 
on the collected multitude was clearly different. Many, 
we are told, believed in our Lord: muny saw 
in His miracles an evidence of a Messiahship 
which it seemed now no longer possible either to doubt 
or to deny. The sequel, however, we might 
easily have foreseen. An effort is at once 
made by the party of the Sanhedrin to lay 
hands on our Lord, but is frustrated, perhaps partly by the 


Luke ix. 57. 


John vii. 11. 


John vii. 25. 


Ver. 31, 


Ver. 31. 
Ver. 32. 


father, are placed by St. Matthew in a totally different connection. See ch. xviii. 
19—21. To account for this is difficult, though we can have no difficulty in believ- 
ing that it could be readily accounted for if we knew αὐ the circumstances. Itis 
not, for example, unreasonable to suppose that the incident of the self-offering 
follower might have happened twice, and that St. Matthew, in accordance with 
his habit of connecting together what was similar (see Lect. 1. p. 85 sq.), might 
have associated with the first occurrence of that incident an incident which, in 
point of time, really belonged to the second. 

1 It is worthy of notice that St. John here places before us the views and com- 
ments of a party that clearly must be regarded as different from the general 
ὄχλος (ver. 20) on the one hand, and the more hostile Ἰουδαῖοι (ver. 15) on the 
other. We have here the remarks of some of the residents in the city. They 
evidently are perfectly acquainted with the general designs of the party of the 
Sanhedrin, and are full of natural wonder that they should have permitted this 
free speaking on the part of One whom they had resolved, and whom it was 
obviously their interest, to silence. The incidental notice of the sort of half 
knowledge these Ἱροσολυμῖται had acquired is in the highest degree natural and 
characteristic. See Stier, Disc. ef our Lord, Vol. ν. p. 267. 


\ 


Lecr. VI. THE JOURNEYINGS TOWARD JERUSALEM. 231 


multitude, and certainly also in great measure by the 
convictions of the very men that were sent to take Him.! 
The savage spirit of the Sanhedrin is now, however, 
distinctly shown, and now is it that for the first time 
publicly, though darkly, the Lord speaks of that depart- 
ure, —of that “being sought for and not 
found,” on which He had already spoken 
twice before to His disciples with such saddening explicit- 
ness. Yet He will not leave those heart-touched multi- 
tudes that were now hanging on His words. Yet again, on 
the last day of the festival, the Lord preaches 
publicly, with a most solemn and appropriate 
reference to the living waters of the Spirit which should 
flow forth when He was glorified” Again a desire is 
manifested by the party of the Sanhedrin to 
lay hands on Him; again, as it would seem, 
a meeting of the Sanhedrin is held, and again their pro- 


Ver. 84. 


Ver. 37. 


Ver. 44. 


1 This transpires afterwards. See John vii. 45. It would seem that when 
these ὑπηρέται were sent forth with orders to seize our Lord, it was left to their 
discretion to watch for a good opportunity and a reasonable pretext. At the 
next session of the Sanhedrin they make a report of what they had done, or 
rather left undone, and are exposed accordingly to the scornful inquiries and 
practical censure of the council (ver. 47). Further proceedings, it would seem, 
are at present, if not arrested, yet impeded by the question of Nicodemus (ver. 
51). 

2 There seems no sufficient reason for rejecting the generally received opinion, 
that allusion is here made to the custom of bringing water from the well of 
Siloam and pouring it on the altar, which appears to have been observed on 
every day of this festival,—the eighth (according to R. Judah in ‘ Succah,” 
Iv. 9) also included. See especially Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr. in loc. Vol. ii. p. 6382 
(Roterod. 1686), and the good article in Winer, RWB. ‘“* Laubhiittenfest,” Vol. 
li. p. 8. Whether this “great day” of the festival is to be regarded as the 
seventh or as the eighth is a matter of some doubt. If it be true, as urged by 
Winer, that the opinion of Rabbi Judah above cited is only that of an indi- 
vidual, and that the prevailing practice was to offer libations only on seven days 
(‘*Succah,” Iv. 1), and if it be further supposed that our Lord’s words were 
called forth by the actual performance of the rite, then ‘“‘the great day ” must 
be the seventh day. As, however, it appears from the written law that the eighth 
day was regarded as a Sabbath (Lev. xxiii. 36; comp. Joseph. Antiq. 111. 10. 4), 
and as peculiar solemnities are specified in the oral law as celebrated on that day 
(see Lightfoot, Joc. cit.), it seems more correct to regard the eighth as “the great 
day; and if it be conceded that there was no libation on that day, to suppose 
our Lord’s words were called forth, not by the act itself, but by'a remembrance 
of the custom observed on the preceding days. See Meyer zm loc. p. 289 (ed. 3) 
and the elaborate comments of Liicke, Vol. ii. p. 229 sq. (ed. 3). 


232 THE JOURNEYINGS TOWARD JERUSALEM. Lect. VI. 


posals are encountered by a just opposition ; not, however, 
on this occasion by the tacit and merely passive opposition 
of their reluctant satellites, but by the open pleading of 
one of its most important members, the timid yet faithful 
Nicodemus, — the only one among the rulers 
of the Jews who was found to urge the 
observance of that law of Moses which its hypocritical 
guardians were now seeking to pervert or to violate. 
To this same period, if we conceive the narrative in 
question to be written by St. John, must be 
ΩΝ assigned the memorable and most certainly 
ble place of them- inspired history of the woman taken in adul- 
fen tore tery; but as I venture to entertain, some- 
what decidedly, the opinion that it was not 
written by that Evangelist,? and that it does not in any 
way blend naturally with the present portion of the Re- 
deemer’s history, I will not here pause on it, but will only 
notice in passing the great plausibility and historical fitness 
with which three or four of the cursive manuscripts insert 
it at the end of the twenty-first chapter of St. Luke? 


Ver. 51. 


1 Compare Lect. 111. p. 124, note 3, ad fin. 

2 The limits and general character of these notes wholly preclude our attempt- 
ing to enter upon a formal discussion of this difficult question. It may be briefly 
observed, however, that the opinion expressed in the text rests on the following 
considerations: (1) the absence of the passage from — (α) three out of the four first: 
class MSS. and the valuable MS. marked L; (δ) several ancient versions, among 
which are some early Latin versions of great importance, and apparently the 
Peshito-Syriac; (c) several early and important patristic writers, Origen, Tertul- 
lian, Cyprian, and Chrysostom being of the number: (2) The striking number of 
variations of reading among the documents that retain the passage, there being not 
less than eighty variations of reading in one hundred and eighty-three words: (3) 
The almost equally striking difference of style, both in the connecting particles 
and other words, from that of St. John, and the apparent similarity in style to 
that of St. Luke. From these reasons, external and internal, we seem justi- 
fied in removing the passage from the place it now occupies in the received text, 
though there appears every reason for believing it a portion of the Gospel his- 
tory. It cannot be too strongly impressed on the general reader that no reason- 
able critic throws doubt on the incident, but only on its present place in the 
sacred narrative. For critical details see the new (7th) edition of Tischendorf’s 
Greek Test. Vol. i. p. 602, and Meyer, Komment. iib. Joh. p. 247 (ed. 3). 

8 These manuscripts are numbered 13, 69, 124, 346; one of these (69) being the 
well-known Codex Leicestrensis, and the other three MSS. of the Alexandrian 
family. It cannot apparently be asserted that the passage exactly fits on after 


Lect. VI. THE JOURNEYINGS TOWARD JERUSALEM. 233 


But the Lord still lingers at Jerusalem in spite of the 
vengeful storm that was fast gathering round 
Him. To the first Sabbath after the festival τα (ching 
we must apparently? assign the discourse on “salem κφο ο0. 
His own and His Father’s testimony, and the 
striking declarations of His mission from Him that was 
true, and of His union with the eternal 
Father, — declarations which we know so 
wrought upon our Lord’s very opponents that many of 
them,” as St. John tells us, believed on Him as He thus 
spake unto them, though, alas, as the sequel 
seems to show, that belief was soon exchanged 
for captious questioning, and at last even for 
the frightful violences of blinded religious zeal. To this 
same Sabbath we must certainly assign the 
performance of the deeply interesting miracle 
of giving sight to the beggar® who had grown up to man- 


Ver. 25 sq. 


Ver. 30, 
Ver. 33. 


Ver. 39. 


Luke xxi. 38, but it certainly does seem rightly attached to that chapter gen- 
erally, and properly to find a place among the incidents there related. See more 
in Lect. Vit. 

1 It may be doubted whether we are to assign the discourses recorded by St. 
John in ch. viii. to the last day of the feast of Tabernacles (John vii. 87), or to 
the Sabbath on which the blind man was healed (John x. 14). The latter appears 
to be the more probable connection. The beginning of ch. ix. seems closely 
linked with the concluding verse of chap. viii.—a chapter which really com- 
mences with ver. 12, and contains the record of a series of apparently continuous 
discourses. Compare Origen, in Joann. x1x. 2, Vol. iv. p. 292 (ed. Bened.). 
Between this chapter and the close of ch. vii. there seems a break, which in the 
received text is filled up with the narrative of the woman taken in adultery. 
On the connection of this portion, see Wieseler, Chron. Synops. p. 329, and com- 
pare the remarks of Meyer, Komment. wb. Joh. Ὁ. 289 sq. (ed. 3), — who, however, 
does not seem correct in separating John viii. 21 sq. from what precedes, and in 
assigning the discourse to a following day. 

2 It is worthy of notice that the Evangelist seems desirous that it should be 
clearly observed that the πολλοὲ who believed (John viii. 80) belonged to the 
hostile party, the ᾿Ιουδαῖοι (see p. 115, note 3), as he specially adds that the address 
beginning ch. viii. 81 was directed πρὸς τοὺς πεπιστευκότας αὐτῷ lovdaious. 
On the whole discourse and the melancholy fluctuations in the minds of these 
sadly imperfect believers, see the exceedingly good comments of Stier, Disc. of 
Our Lord, Vol. iv. p. 849 sq. (Clark). 

3 See John ix. 8, where the true reading seems undoubtedly, not ὅτι τυφλὸς 
ἦν (Rec.), but ὅτι προσαίτη 5 ἦν, which has the support of the four principal 
MSS., the Syriac, Latin, Coptic, and other ancient versions, and is rightly 
adopted by most recent editors. On the miracle itself, the characteristics of 


20* 


234 THE JOURNEYINGS TOWARD JERUSALEM. Lect. VI. 


hood in blindness, and who believed in, yea, and wor- 
shipped as the Son of God, Him by whose 


ee * merciful hands he received his sight! With 
the sublime discourse on the Good Shep- 
Ch. x.1 sq. 


herd, — the Good Shepherd that even now, 
with stones every moment ready to be cast 
upon Him, was giving His very life for His sheep, —the 
memorable occurrences on this eventful Sabbath? and 
during our Lord’s present stay in Jerusalem appear to 
have come to their close. At no preceding festival had 
our Lord made a deeper impression on the minds of those 
whom He had vouchsafed to address. At no former visit 
was such an effect produced on the feelings, not only of the 
more friendly multitudes, but even of open 

Cam chvitts, OF concealed foes, and that, too, as far‘as we 
on et vim can infer from the inspired narrative, not so 
much by mighty works, as by powerful and 

persuasive teaching. All seem alike to have felt, and in 
some degree alike to have yielded to, the influence of the 
gracious words that proceeded from the Redeemer’s mouth. 


Comp. ch. viii. 59. 


which are, our Lord’s being pleased to impart His healing powers by an outward 
medium (ver. 5), a deferred (comp. Mark viii. 28) or rather suspended cure, and 
its divinely ordered dependence on the sufferer’s performance of a prescribed 
act (2 Kings v. 10),—see the comments of Cyril Alex. and Chrysostom, én loc., 
August. in Joann. Tractat. xLiv., Bp. Hall, Contempl. Iv. 8, and Trench, Notes 
on the Miracles, p. 288. 

1 Some modern expositors endeavor to dilute the nature of the blind man’s 
belief in our Lord as the ‘‘ Son of God.” Why, however, are we to say that this 
title must have had a theocratic (Meyer) rather than a Christian meaning to the 
mind of the recent sufferer, when it is so possible, and even so probable, from his 
conduct before the Pharisees, that He who had given light to his bodily eye had 
vouchsafed a special illuminating influence (see Euthym. én doc.) to the inner eye 
of the mind? What else are we to understand from his prompt act of accepted 
adoration than a recognition of the divine nature of Him before whom he was 
standing? As Augustine well says, ‘‘ Agnoscit eum non filium hominis tantum, 
quod ante crediderat, sed jam filium Dei qui carnem susceperat.’’— in Joann. 
Tractat. XLIv. 15, Vol. iii. p. 1718 (ed. Migné). On the meaning ascribed to the 
title ‘Son of God,” compare Lect. 111. p. 119, note 2, Lect. v. p. 196, note 1. 

2 Some expositors place an interval of one or more days after John ix. 34, and 
before John x. 1 (see Stier, Disc. of our Lord, Vol. ν. pp. 445, 448), and so extend 
the events over a greater space of time. This may be so; but the above assump- 
tion, that all took place on the Sabbath mentioned ch. ix. 14, seems on the whole 
rather more in accordance with the general tenor of the text. 


Lect. VI. THE JOURNEYINGS TOWARD JERUSALEM. 235 


The impression was general; the testimony all but unani- 
mous. The mixed multitude, the dwellers at Jerusalem, 
the officials of the Temple, and to some ,, νος 
extent even the hostile Jewish party, bore Ver. 4. 
witness to the more than mortal power of ἜΡΕΣΗ 
the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth. 

Whither our Lord now went is not specified, and must 
remain only a matter of conjecture. It may pg buat 
be remarked, however, that the silence of Jerusalem and mis- 
St. John, who commonly indicates whenever 5»: 
our Lord’s ministry was transferred from Judea, seems to 
give us very good grounds for supposing that our Lord, as 
once before, after His first passover, so now again, remained 
still within the frontier of Judsea, and again partially 
resumed a ministry there which had been suspended in 
the December of the preceding year. If this be so, it is 
to this country, and apparently also to this period,’ that 
we must refer the sending forth of the seventy disciples, — 
those seventy whose very number hinted at 
the future destination of the Gospel for the 
wide world and the seventy nations into which the Jews 
divided it,? even as the mission of the twelve Apostles not 
_obscurely hinted at the first offer of the Gospel to the now 
merged twelve tribes of God’s own peculiar people. 


Luke x.1. 


The exact period of the mission of the Seventy has been much debated by 
harmonists of this portion of Scripture. Wieseler fixes it as during the journey 
through Samaria, and finds a special appropriateness in the choice of that coun- 
try. See Chronol. Synops. p. 326, note. As, however, the journey through 
Samaria was apparently in haste, and as the whole of Luke x. seems to refer to 
events which succeeded that journey (comp. De Wette, i /oc.), the place here 
assigned to the mission is perhaps more probable. 

2 See Eisenmenger, Entd. Judenthum, Vol. ii. p. 786 sq., and especially the 
interesting Rabbinical citations in Lightfoot (Hor. Hebr. in Joann. vii 37), which 
we may further use as indirectly confirming our present chronological arrange- 
ment. If the custom alluded to in those passages, of offering sacrifices at the 
feast of Tabernacles for the seventy nations of the heathen world, was as old as 
the time of our Saviour, — and this there seems no reason to doubt, —it does not 
seem wholly fanciful to connect this mission of seventy men, whose destination, 
though not defined, does not at any rate appear to have had any specified limits 
assigned to it (contrast Matt. x. 5), with a period shortly succeeding a festival 
where the needs of the heathen world were not forgotten even by the Jews. 


236 THE JOURNEYINGS TOWARD JERUSALEM. Lect. VI. 


During this same period —this interval between the 
feast of Tabernacles and the feast of the 

ben en, Dedication=me may also, with considerable 
shen τῆ probability, place the visit of our Lord to 
Martha and Mary at Bethany, when Martha 

was so cumbered with much serving; and to this same 
interval may we assign that instructive series of discourses? 
which extend from the middle of the tenth to the middle 
of the thirteenth chapter of St. Luke, the few incidents 
connecting which seem admirably to agree with the ar- 
rangement that would refer them to Judea and to this par- 
ticular period of our Lord’s ministry.” Though devoid of 
all notices of place*® which might enable us to give some 
circumstantial touches to the few interspersed incidents, or 
sketch them out in a connected narrative, they still serve 
to show us very clearly, on the one hand, that the effect 
produced by our Lord’s present ministry in Judzea was very 
great, that His hearers were now unusually numerous, and 
showed as earnest a desire to hear the words of life as was 


1 This interesting portion of St. Luke’s Gospel opens with the parable of the 
good Samaritan (ch. x. 25 sq.) and closes with the miracle performed on the 
woman bowed by a spirit of infirmity (ch. xiii. 10O—17). The two striking para- 
bles of the rich fool (ch. x. 16 sq.) and the barren fig-tree (ch. xiii. 6 sq.) belong 
to this period, and present the characteristics of so many of the parables recorded 
by St. Luke, viz. that of springing from or being suggested by some preceding 
event. See Da Costa, The Fowr Witnesses, p. 211 sq. 

2 The healing of the two blind men (Matt. ix. 27 sq.) is inserted by Tischendorf 
(Synops. Evang. p. Xxxix.) in the present portion of the narrative, on the 
ground. that, according to St. Matthew, it stands in close connection with the 
cure of a deaf and dumb demoniac (ver. 82 sq.), which again, according to Luke 
xi. 14 sq., must belong to the present period of the history. On the whole, how- 
ever, it seems better to conceive that the incident of curing a deaf and dumb 
demoniac, and the blasphemy it evoked (Matt. ix. 34, Luke xi. 15), happened 
twice, than to detach Matt. ix. 27 sq. so far from the period to which it certainly 
seems to belong. The blasphemous comment might well have been first made 
by the Pharisees (Matt. ix. 84), and then afterwards have been imitated and reit- 
erated by others. Compare Luke xi. 15, where observe that the speakers are not 
defined. 

8 Compare ch. x. 88, where even the well-known Bethany [Greswell’s argu- 
ments (Dissertation ΧΧΧΙΙ.) against this identification seem wholly invalid] 
is no more nearly defined than as a κώμη TLs. Compare also ch. xi. 1, ἐν 
τῷ εἶναι ev τόπῳ τινι, xiii, 10, ἐν μιᾷ τῶν συναγωγῶν, and see above, p. 206, 
note 2. 


Lect. VI. THE JOURNEYINGS TOWARD JERUSALEM. 237 


ever shown even in Galilee; and, on the other hand, that 
the enmity of the Pharisees and hierarchical 

party was deepening in its implacability,— cones. cro. 
and that more especially as our Lord did not = @. ag 
now repress His solemn and open denun- 

ciations of the hypocrisy and bloodthirsty spirit of these 
miserable and blinded men. The last incident of the 
period in question, the cure, on a Sabbath day, of a woman 
weakened and bowed down by demoniacal influence,! 
brings both parties very clearly before us, the 
adversaries and their shamed silence, and the 
people, that, as the Evangelist tells us, “re- 
joiced for all the glorious things” that were done by their 
great Healer. 

At the end of this two-month ministry in Judea, and, 
as computation seems to warrant our saying, ρἀρφικου νον 
about the 20th of December,’ St. John α15-  toverusatem at the 
tinctly specifies that our Lord was preset in! | arr 
Jerusalem at the annual festival which commemorated the 
purification and re-dedication of the Temple under Judas 
Maccabeus.? Though threatened by every form of danger, 


John xiii. 17. 
Ver. 17. 


1 This miracle, it may be observed, also took place in a synagogue (Luke xiii. 
10), and in this respect was the counterpart in Judza of the similar healings on 
the Sabbath in the synagogue at Capernaum (Mark i. 21 sq., Luke iv. 81 sq.; and 
again, Matt. xii. 9 sq., Mark iii. 1 sq., Luke vi. 6 sq.). On the first occasion we 
find no expression of complaint or indignation; on the second occasion, evil 
thoughts are at work, but no demonstration is made; here, however, the ruler 
of the synagogue himself interposes and addresses the multitude in terms spe- 
cially intended to reflect censure on our Lord (ver. 14). On the miracle itself, 
the peculiar nature of which was the removal of a contraction of the body, pro- 
duced by demoniacal influence (ver. 16), that had continued as long as eighteen 
years, see Augustine, Serm. cx. Vol. v. p. 688 sq. (ed Migne), Hook, Serm. on the 
Miracles, Vol. ii. p. 102, and Trench, Notes on the Miracles, p. 824. 

2 The feast of Dedication regularly commenced on the twenty-fifth of Chislev. 
This date in the year we are now considering (Α. τ΄. Ο. 782) will coincide, accord- 
ing to the tables of Wurm and Wieseler, with Tuesday, December 20. See 
Chron. Synops. p. 484, or Tischendorf, Synops. Evang. p. 111. 

8 This festival, more fully specified in the Books of Maccabees as 6 ἐγκαινισμὸς 
τοῦ δυσιαστηρίου (1 Mace. iv. 56, 59), 6 καϑαρισμὸς τοῦ ναοῦ (2 Mace. x. 5), and 
further distinguished by the name φῶτα, in consequence, according to Josephus 
(Antiq. xu. 7. 7), of unlooked-for deliverance, was instituted by Judas Macca- 
beus after his victories over the generals of Antiochus Epiphanes, and designed 


238 THE JOURNEYINGS TOWARD JERUSALEM. Lecv. VI. 


the Good Shepherd yet went once again, as His own divine 
words seem partially to suggest, to tend His sheep, — the 
sheep which heard His voice and had been given to Him 
by that eternal Father with whom He now solemnly and 
explicitly declared Himself to be one. He 
who but a few months before, in the remote 
uplands of Galilee, had commanded His disciples not to 
divulge His Messiahship, now in Solomon’s 
porch’ and in the face of bitter foes pro- 
claims His divinity; He who even now vouchsafed not 
fully to answer the question of the excited people whether 
He were the Christ or no, nevertheless avows 
before all men that He is the Son of God.’ 
That title which to the misbelieving Jew would have 
been but the symbol of earthly and carnal hope or the 
watchword of sedition, He merges in the higher designa- 


John x. 80. 


Matt. xvi. 20. 


John x. 24, 25. 


to commemorate the purification of the temple after its pollution by that frantie 
and cruel man (1 Macc. i. 20, Joseph. Antiq. x11. 5. 4). It lasted eight days, and 
appears to have been a time of great festivity and rejoicing. See Otho, Lez. 
Rabbin. p. 288 sq., and Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr. in Joann. X. 22, where quotations 
are given from the Mishna which seem to show that the practice of illuminating 
the city during the festival, and perhaps also the title φῶτα, was derived from a 
legendary account of a miraculous multiplication of pure oil for lighting the 
sacred lamps, which occurred at the first celebration of the festival. See, how- 
ever, Winer, RWB. Art. *‘ Kirchweihfest,” Vol. i. p. 659. 

1 The comment χειμὼν ἦν (ch. x. 22), which St. John prefixes to his notice of 
the exact locality in which our Lord then was, seems designed to remind the 
reader why He was pleased to select this covered place (‘‘ ut captaret calorem,”’ 
Lightfoot) rather than the open courts in which, it would seem, He more usually 
taught the multitudes. Compare Winer, RWAB., Art. ‘Tempel,’ Vol. ii. p. 586. 
The porch, or cloister in question, we learn from Josephus (Antig. Xx. 9. 7), was 
on the east side of the temple,— hence also known by the name of the στοὰ 
ἀνατολιιή, --- and appears to have been a veritable portion of the ancient temple 
of Solomon, which either wholly or in part escaped when the rest of the build- 
ing was burnt by Nebuchadnezzar, 2 Kings xxv. 9 (Joseph. Antig. x. 8.5). It 
formed one, and that apparently the most splendid, of the noble cloisters which 
surrounded the temple enclosure. See Lightfoot, Descr. Templi, cap. 8, Vol. i. 
p. 565 (Roterod. 1686). 

2 On this title, which here, as in other places, has been explained away by 
many recent writers, see the following note, and compare above, p. 119, note 2, 
and p. 196, note 1. Some good comments on this particular passage will be 
found in Wilson, Jilustr. of the N. T. ch. ii. p. 87 sq., and a defence of the true 
meaning of the title in opposition to Dorner, in Stier, Disc. ef our Lord, Vol. v. 
Ρ. 496 sq. 


Lect. VI THE JOURNEYINGS TOWARD JERUSALEM. 239 


tion that betokened His eternity and Godhead We can 
perhaps scarcely wonder at what followed. If, nine months 
before, at the feast of Purim, the same bitter and preju- 
diced men had sought to kill our Lord for 
claiming to be the Son of God; if again, at the 
recent feast of Tabernacles, the declaration of an existence 
before Abraham had made them snatch up 
stones to cast at Him, it could scarcely be 
otherwise now, when the eternal Son was claiming a one- 
ness of essence with the eternal Father. 

Savage hands soon take up the stones that 

lay around those ancient cloisters;? wild voices charge 
the Holy One with blasphemy. With blas- 
phemy! when the very language of Scripture 
proved that Shiloh was only laying claim to prerogatives 
and titles that were verily His own. Blas- 
phemy! when the very works to which our 
Lord appealed were living proofs that He was in the 
Father, and the Father in Him. But the 
hearts of those wretched men were hardened, 
and their ears could not hear. Fain would they have used 
the stones they were now holding in their hands ;* fain 


John v. 18. 


Ch. viii. 59. 


Psalm laxxii. 6. 


John «x. 36. 


Ver. 38. 


1 The popular assumption that the term ‘‘Son of God” was regarded by the 
Jews in the time of our Lord as one of the appropriate titles of the Messiah, is 
carefully investigated by Wilson in the work referred to above (chap. Iv. p. 56 
sq.), and the conclusion arrived at is stated as follows: “ With no direct testi- 
mony whatever on one side, and with the testimony of Origen (contr. Cels. I. p. 
88, ed. Spencer), supported by a strong body of probable evidence deduced from 
the New Testament, on the other, it seems necessary to conclude that custom had 
not appropriated this title to the Messiah of the Jews near the time of Jesus 
Christ.” — Illustr. of N. T. p. 74. 

2 The idle question, how stones would be found in such a locality, may be most 
easily disposed of by observing, not only that general repairs and restoration in 
and about the temple were going on to a considerable extent until after the time 
of our Lord (Joseph. Antig. xx. 9.7; compare Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr. Vol. ii. p. 
638), but that these very cloisters had not improbably suffered greatly in the fire 
during the revolt against Sabinus (Antig. xv11. 10. 2), and might not even yet 
have been completely restored. At any rate, a proposal was made to rebuild 
them in the time of Agrippa (Antig. x. 9.7). For an account of stones being 
freely used in an uproar in the temple-courts, see Antiq. xvit. 9. 3, 

3 We seem justified in pressing the present tense (διὰ ποῖον αὐτῶν ἔργον με 
AtSd ere; John x. 32); the Jews had taken up stones, and were standing 


240 THE JOURNEYINGS TOWARD JERUSALEM. Lect. VI. 


would they have seized on their Redeemer, and carried 
out, even where they were, their lawless and impious 
designs, when that Holy One at once left both the temple 
and the city, and withdrew to those secluded 
districts across the Jordan where the Baptist 
had commenced his ministry.!. There the Lord found both 
faith and reception, and there, as it would 
seem, He vouchsafed to abide until the com- 
mencement of His second and subsequent 
journey to Bethany and to the neighborhood of Jerusalem. 
But even in those secluded districts hypocrisy and 
malice soon found an opportunity for codper- 

santo ἄνα προς ation. After our Lord had now, as it would 
prepareuor seem, commenced His journey towards Jeru- 
salem, and as His steps were leading Him 

perhaps through one of the Perzan villages or towns in 
the neighborhood of His former abode,? Pharisees come 


John x. 40. 


Ver. 41. 
Luke xiii. 32. 


ready to carry out their blinded impiety. Compare Winer, Gram. ὃ 40. 2, p. 287 
(ed. 6). Stier (Disc. of our Lord, Vol. v. p. 494, Clark) contrasts the ἐβάστασαν 
Aigous in the present case with the ἦραν λίϑους in ch. viii. 59, urging that the 
former word marks a more deliberate rolling up of larger stones, the latter a 
more hasty and impetuous snatching up of any stones that chanced to lie in 
their way. The explanation of ἦραν may possibly be correct; but the ἐβάστα- 
σαν seems rather to imply, what the context seems to confirm, both the act of 
taking up the stones, and also that of holding them in their hands, so as to be 
ready for use. 

1 For a rough estimate both of the time (four or five weeks) which our Lord 
may be supposed to have now spent in Perza, and of the date of the commence- 
ment of the second journey, see above, p. 225, note 8. The place, we may 
observe, is particularly specified, as ** where John at jirst baptized” (John x. 
40), ὁ. e., Bethabara, or (according to the correct reading) Bethany, which would 
seem to have been situated not very far from the ford over the Jordan in the 
neighborhood of Jericho. See above, Lect. 111. p. 108, note 2. Here, and in the 
adjoining districts of Perea, our Lord remained till the second journey toward 
Jerusalem, which at first might have assumed the character of a partial mission- 
ary circuit, with the Holy City as its wltimate goal (see the following note), and 
which at first might have been leisurely, but which afterwards, as the sequel 
shows, was speedy. 

2 It would seem, as has been suggested in the preceding note, that our Lord’s 
present journey was not at first direct. St. Luke’s very words διδάσκων καὶ 
πορείαν ποιούμενος εἰς Ἱερουσαλήμ (ch. xiii. 22) appear almost studiously both 
to mark a more deliberate progress and to point to Jerusalem, not as the imme- 
diate destination, but as the place toward which the journey was tending. See 
Wieseler, Chron. Synops. p. 821. 


Lecr. VI. THE JOURNEYINGS TOWARD JERUSALEM. 241 


with plausible words to expedite His departure, and to 
rid themselves of One whose successful preaching and 
teaching they had probably already observed with anxiety 
and hatred. They affect to give Him friendly warning; 
they urge Him to depart, because Herod was seeking to 
kill Him. Because Herod was seeking to 
kill Him! O double-sided stratagem! O 
cunning coéperation of evil men! ἼΠ was Herod who was 
wishing Him to depart; ’t was Pharisees who were wishing 
to kill Him. That weak, wicked, and selfish Tetrarch! was 
probably anxious to get out of his territory One whose 
fame was daily spreading, and whom he knew not whether 
to honor or to persecute. He was embarrassed, but soon 
both sought and found useful tools in the Pharisees,? who 
were only too ready to urge our Lord to leave a land 
where His life was comparatively safe, for one where, as 
they well knew, it was now in extremest jeopardy. But 
the divine Reader of the heart, as His message to Herod 
seems to prove, and His mournful address to Jerusalem,’ 


Luke xiii. 31. 


1 See Lect. v. p. 210, note 1. 

2 The above explanation is the only one which appears to satisfy the context 
and the plain meaning of the terms used. Our Lord sees through the stratagem, 
and sends a message to Herod, which, in the peculiar term used {τῇ ἀλώπεκι 
ταύτῃ, Luke xiii. 32), implies that the Tetrarch’s craftiness had not escaped 
notice; and, in the distinct specifications of time (σήμερον καὶ αὔριον καὶ τῇ 
τρίτῃ), seems to imply not mere general and undefined periods, but literal and 
actual days (see Meyer and Alford, zn loc.), two of which would be spent in the 
territory of the evil man to whom the message was sent, and devoted to miracu- 
lous works of mercy. That our Lord really designed the message not for Herod 
but for the Pharisees (Stier, Disc. of owr Lord, Vol. iv. p. 61, Clark; comp. also 
Cyril Alex. in loc. and the Scholiast in Cramer, Caten. Vol. ii. p. 110) seems 
highly improbable, and contrary to the plain tenor of very simple and very 
explicit words. Η 

3 The position which this address to Jerusalem occupies in St. Luke’s Gospel 
(ch. xiii. 84), as compared with that in St. Matthew’s Gospel (see ch. xxiii. 37 
sq.), and the interpretation which is to be given to the words, are points which 
have been much discussed. With regard to the first, the natural coherence with 
what precedes wholly precludes our believing that St. Luke has misplaced the 
words. Nearly as much may be urged for the position of the words in St. Mat- 
thew. It appears, then, not unreasonable to suppose that the words were 
uttered on two different occasions, a supposition further supported by some 
slight diversities of language in the two places. See Alford on Luke xiii. 34. 
With regard to the second point, while it seems difficult to believe that the words 


21 


242 THE JOURNEYINGS TOWARD JERUSALEM. Lect. VL 


which immediately follows, serves indirectly tg confirm, 
saw in an instant through that combination of cunning 
and malevolence. Works of mercy were yet to be done, 
miraculous cures were to be vouchsafed to-day and to-mor- 
row, even in the borders of that wily ruler’s province ; on 
the third was to begin the journey that, though recom- 
menced from Ephraim, was the last made 
actually zo Jerusalem, — that journey that 
closed with Golgotha and its perfected sacrifice.’ 
Whether the difficult words which have just been para- 
ee ee phrased apply definitely to the period of the 
ee Se history now before us, whether they are 
1 merely proverbial, or whether they involve 
a special note of time, cannot confidently be decided. 
The latter, as we have already implied, seems the more 
natural view, and is most in accordance with the precise 
nature of the inspired language; but more than this 
cannot be positively asserted. One thing seems perfectly 
clear, that in the succeeding portion of St. Luke’s Gospel 
there is nothing which is opposed to such a view, and that 
in St. John’s Gospel, as we shall hereafter 866,2 there is 
something in its favor. That our Lord preached and per- 
formed miracles* during the brief remainder of His stay in 


John xi. 54. 


have no reference to the time when the very terms here specified were actually 
used (see Mark xi. 9), it seems equally difficult to believe that their meaning was 
then exhausted. We may thus, perhaps with some reason, believe, with modern 
chronologers (comp. Wieseler, Chron. Synops. p. 822), that the words had a first 
and perhaps immediate reference to the triumphal entry, and, with the ancient 
writers (Theophylact, al.), that they had a further reference to the Lord’s second 
advent. 

i The meaning and reference of τελειοῦμαι (Luke xiii. 32) is perhaps slightly 
doubtful. That it isa present passive (Syr., Vulg.), not a pres. middle (Meyer), 
and that the meaning is “‘ consummor” (Syr., Vulg.), seems clearly to follow 
from the regular usage of the verb in the N. Test. (comp. esp. Phil. iii. 12); and 
that the reference is to an action soon and certainly (Winer, Gr. § 40. 2) to be 
commenced, and also to be continued, seems a just inference from the tense. 
Combining these observations, we may perhaps rightly refer it, as above, to our 
Lord’s perfected sacrifice (‘the passion upon the cross for the salvation of the 
world,” Cyr. Alex.), which was consummated in Golgotha, but the onward 
course to which was commenced when our Lord left the borders of Perwa. 

2 See below, pp. 267, 268. 

3 The prominent declaration in our Lord’s message to Herod is that there will 


Lecr. VI. THE JOURNEYINGS TOWARD JERUSALEM. 243 


Pera can scarcely be doubted. That He healed a man 
afflicted with dropsy? at the house of a leader of the 
Pharisees, where He was invited, as it would alin ὁ 
seem, only to be watched, and uttered there om 
the appropriate parable of the Great Supper, 

-— that publicans* and sinners crowded round Him, — and 
that when scribes and Pharisees murmured thereat, He 
uttered the parables of the Lost Sheep, the 

Lost Coin, the Prodigal Son, and subse- ΤΌΜΕΤῊΣΙ 


quently, to His disciples, though in the hear- Ar ua 
ing of the Pharisees, the parables of the re 
Unjust Steward, and of Lazarus* and the 


Rich Man,—seems almost certain from the place which 


still be a continuance of miraculous works of mercy ‘to-day and to-morrow.” 
Of these St. Luke only mentiens.the healing of a man afflicted with dropsy; but 
as we may observe that in this portion of his Gospel he was clearly moved rather 
to record the teaching of our Lord than to specify His mighty works, we cannot 
fairly press the omission of other miracles that might have taken place on these 
concluding days. 

1 Qn this miracle, which forms one of the seven performed on the Sabbath 
{see above, p. 168, note 2}, compare some comments by Anselm, Hom. x. Ὁ. 180 
(Paris, 1675), a few remarks by Stier, Disc. of our Lord, Vol. iv. p. 67 (Clark), 
and Trench, Notes on the Miracles, p. 329. The miracle was performed at the 
house of an ἄρχων τῶν Φαρισαίων (Luke xiv. 1),—a general title, as it would 
seem, implying some leadership or preéminence in the seet. See Meyer in loc. 

2The peculiar reference which St. Luke here makes to ‘all the publicans ” 
(πάντες ci τελῶναι, Luke xv. 1) appears to deserve attention as something 
more than a merely general or “ popularly hyperbolical” {Meyer) form of ex- 
pression. if our Lord was now near one of the fords of the Jordan, and not 
far from Jericho, he would be on the borders of a district in which, owing to its 
great preductiveness (Robinson, Palestine, Vol. i. p. 559), these tax collectors 
would probably have been very numerous. Comp. Luke xix. 2, and see Lange, 
Leben Jesu, τι. 6.1, Part τι. p. 1159. 

3 From the general connection of Luke xvi. 1 (ἔλεγεν δὲ καὶ πρὸς τοὺς μαϑη- 
τάς) with ch. xv., and the apparent connection of subject between ch. xvi. 19— 
31 with ver. 9—13 (see Meyer iz loc. p. 421, ed. 8), we may perhaps infer that this 
parable was uttered on the same day that so many of the publicans came to hear 
our Lord’s teaching {ch. xv. 1), and probably at the close of the last day in 
Perea, or at the beginning of the next, when our Lord might have been in the 
district of Jericho. See above, p. 240, note 1. If this be so, and we agree to 
combine with this portion of St. Luke’s Gospel the narrative in John xi. } sq. 
{see below), this parable would have been uttered only a day or two after our 
Lord had received the message about Lazarus. May not, then, the name of the 
sufferer in the parable have been suggested by the name of Lazarus of Bethany, 
on whom cur Lord’s thoughts might now have been dwelling, and in whose his- 
tory there may have been possibly some circumstances of resemblance to that of 


244 THE JOURNEYINGS TOWARD JERUSALEM. Lect. VI. 


these discourses occupy in the present portion of St. Luke’s 
narrative. That all this might have been done in the two 
days, the “to-day and to-morrow” which our Lord twice 
so distinctly specifies, and that on the third 
He might have crossed the Jordan and com- 
menced a journey, which, though, as we have already 
observed, not the last to Judza,! was notwithstanding the 
last estimated with reference to the final goal, Jerusalem, 
— is asupposition which seems to coincide fully with the 
language and notices of St. Luke.’ 
And with this too the narrative of St. John does indeed 
appear very strikingly to harmonize. The 
Fee cia next event recorded by that Evangelist, after 
pan the notice of the withdrawal to and preach- 
ing in Perea, is the message sent by the ΔῈ 
flicted sisters of Lazarus, accompanied by the special 
note of time that the Lord abode two days where He then 
was. Now, as two days more would easily bring our Lord 
from Perea to Bethany,’ and as we also know that Lazarus 


Ch. xiti. 32, 33. 


the Lazarus of the parable? The opinions of early writers were divided in 
reference to this parable, some (Irenzus, Tertullian, Chrysostom, al.) conceiving 
it to be an actual history, some of equal antiquity (Clem. Alex., Theophilus, 
Asterius, al.) more plausibly regarding it a parable. See especially the citations 
in Suicer, Thesaur. 5. y. Λάζαρος, Vol. ii. p. 206 sq. 

1 The journey from Ephraim, which apparently lay through Samaria, Galilee, 
and Perea, was the last to Judea, but, in reference to Jerusalem, may be con- 
sidered a part of the second. On these journeys see above, p. 223 sq., and comp. 
p- 225, note 3. 

2 Compare the notice of this second journey, πορείαν ποιούμενος εἰς Ἵερουσα 
Anu (Luke xiii. 22), with the notice of what seems the third journey, ἐν τῷ Topev- 
εσϑαι αὐτὸν εἰς Ἱερουσαλήμ, καὶ αὐτὸς διήρχετο"διὰ μέσου Σαμαρείας καὶ Γαλι- 
Aatas (Luke xvii. 11), — between which passages there is just the connection we 
might expect, on the hypothesis that the first refers to a journey which did not 
reach Jerusalem, and that the second refers to its continuation or recommence- 
ment. 

3 According to the Jerusalem Itinerary, the distance from Jerusalem to Jericho 
was eighteen miles, and from Jericho to the Jordan five more, in all twenty- 
three miles. The same distances are specified by Josephus (Bell. Jud. Iv. 8. 3) as 
one hundred and fifty and sixty stades respectively, or in all two hundred and 
ten stades. See Greswell, Dissert. xxxvitl. Vol. iii. p. 60. Whichever calcu- 
lation be adopted, our Lord clearly could have reached Bethany from the 
Jordan in as little as one day, and with ease in two, even if he had been some 


« 


little distance on the other side of the river. On the rate of ἃ day’s journey, 866 


Greswell, Dissert. xxv1. (Append.) Vol. iv. p. 525 sq. 


Lecr. VI. THE JOURNEYINGS TOWARD JERUSALEM. 245 


was summoned from the tomb after he had lain there four 
days, how very plausible is the supposition 
that the Lord was in Persea when He re- 
ceived the message from the sisters of Lazarus,’ and that 
the two days during which “ He abode in the place where 
He was” were the two last days in Perza, 
the “to-day and to-morrow” of which He 
spake when the Pharisees came with the hypocritical warn- 
ing about the designs of Herod. This seem- 
ing coincidence of the notes of time supplied 
by the fourth Evangelist with those hinted at by St. Luke, 
combined with the further very curious fact, already alluded 
to, that the not very common name of Laza- 
rus? appears in a parable delivered by our 
Lord just at a time when it may be thought to have been 
suggested by the message which St. John tells us was 
sent to our Lord about the actual Lazarus of Bethany, — 
all this does indeed seem to support our view of the 
chronology of the present period, and to reflect some prob- 
ability on our explanation of the ambiguous “to-day and 
to-morrow ” of the third Evangelist.’ 

But let us pass onward. 

On the mighty but familiar miracle of the py te rainy of 
raising of Lazarus I will not pause, save to 77" 
remark that the effect it produced was immense. It gath- 


Ver. 6, 


Luke xiii, 51, 


See p. 243, note 3. 


1 The message only announced that Lazarus was sick, but the supposition is 
not improbable that by the time the messenger reached our Lord Lazarus had 
died. It may be observed that two days afterwards, when our Lord speaks of 
the death of Lazarus, he uses the aorist ἀπέϑανεν (John xi. 14), which seems to 
refer the death to some period, undefined indeed, but now past. See Fritz. de 
Aoristi Vi, Ὁ. 17, and compare notes on 1 Thess. ii. 16. On the adjustments of 
time mentioned in the narrative of St. John, see Meyer on John xi. 17, p. 381 
(ed. 3). 

2 Lazarus appears to be ashortened form of the more familiar Eleazar. See 
especially the learned investigation of Bynzus, de Morte Christi, 111. 8, Vol. i. 
p. 180 sq, and compare Lightfoot, Hor, Hebr. in Joann. xi. 1. 

8 We may perhaps recognize a further point of contact between the τῇ τρίτῃ 
τελειοῦμαι of St. Luke (ch. xiii. 82) and the remarks of the Apostles (John xi. 
8, 16) on our Lord’s proposal to go into Judza: they regard that journey, as it 
truly proved to be, a journey of which τὸ τετελειῶσϑαι was the issue. 


21* 


246 THE JOURNEYINGS TOWARD JERUSALEM. Lect. VI. 


ered in believers even from the ranks of opponents; it 
afterwards brought multitudes from Jerusa- 

peda lem to see the risen man, and swelled the 
triumph of the Lord’s entry ;* and, alas! it 

also now stirred up enemies to delay no longer, and made 
a high-priest pervert the mysterious gift of 
prophecy? by using it to hurry on the mem- 
bers of his council to plot against innocent 
blood. So avowed were now the savage counsels, that 
our Lord at once withdrew to the town of 
Ephraim, on the borders of Samaria,’ and 
there, after an abode of perhaps a very few weeks,* com- 
menced the last, and, as we may perhaps venture to term 
πα 1 the farewell journey described by all the 
Mark a. 1. three Synoptical Evangelists, and specially 
oe eh οϑα δᾶ by St. Luke as being directed 
“through the midst of Samaria and Galilee.” ὅ The strik- 


John xi. 47. 
Ver. 49 sq. 


Ch. xi. 54. 


1 See John xii. 17,18. On this mighty miracle, in which our Lord not only 
appears, as previously, the conqueror of death, but even of corruption (John 
xi. 39), see the commentaries of Origen [the part preceding ver. 89 is lost], Chrys- 
ostom, Cyril Alex., and Augustine (in Joann. Tractat. xLrx.), Bp. Hall, Con- 
templ. IV. 23, 24, the very good comments in Stier, Disc. ef Our Lord, Vo). vi. 
Ῥ. 1sq. (Clark), the vindication of Lardner, Works, Vol. xi. p.1, and Trench, 
Notes on the Miracles, p. 389. 

2It has often been discussed whether this was conscious or unconscious 
prophecy. The tenor of the context seems clearly to show that it can only be 
regarded in the latter view. Caiaphas was only consciously stating what he 
deemed politically advisable, but he was nevertheless, as the inspired Evangelist 
distinctly tells us, at the time actually prophesying: κατὰ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ ἀγωνιζό- 
μενος οὐδὲν ἧττον προεφήτευσε. Origen, in Joann. Tom. x1. 12, where the 
nature of this prophecy is considered at great length. Compare Thesawr. Nov. 
(Crit. Sacer.) Vol. ii. p. 525. 

3 There seems reason for believing that this place was identical with Ophrah, 
and corresponds with the modern village of Taiyibeh, which, according to Rob- 
inson, occupies a commanding site on the top of a conical hill, whence a fine 
view is to be obtained of the eastern mountains, the valley of the Jordan, and 
the Dead Sea. — Palestine, Vol. i. pp. 444, 447. It is about 6h. 20m. (1 hour = 
three Roman miles) distant from Jerusalem (see 7b., Vol. ii. p. 568), a distance 
very closely agreeing with that specified by Jerome (Onomast. s. v.), who makes 
it twenty miles. - 

4 See above, p. 225, note 3. 

5 The interpretation of Meyer (comp. Alford in loc., Lange, Leben Jesu, Part 
11. p. 1065), according to which διὰ μέσου Σαμαρείας καὶ Γαλιλαίας (Luke xvii. 
11) is to be understood as implying the frontier district lying between these two 


Lect. VI. THE JOURNEYINGS TOWARD JERUSALEM. 247 


ing harmony between this notice of direction and the 
abode in the frontier town of Ephraim specified by St. 
John, may well give us confidence in our foregoing ar- 
rangement, and add strength to our belief in the general 
chronological accuracy of the .latter as well as of the 
former portions of the narrative of the third Evangelist. 
The incidents in this last journey are not many. Possi- 
bly on the frontiers of Samaria we may fix 
the scene of the healing of the ten lepers, ise ee 
and of the gratitude of the single sufferer “2. su.16. 
that belonged to the despised land. To the 
period of the transit through Galilee we may perhaps 
assign the notice of the solemn answer to the probably 
treacherous inquiry of the Pharisees when 
the kingdom of God should come, and to 
the same period? the parable of the Unjust 
Judge, — a parable that gains much of its force and solem- 
nity from the previous mention of a time of terrible trial 
and perplexity. From Galilee we seem fully justified, by 


Ver. 20. 
Ch. xviii. 1 sq. 


provinces along which our Lord journeyed from west to east, is apparently 
grammatically defensible (see Xen. Anab. 1. 4. 4), but certainly not very natural 
or probable. The plain and obvious meaning surely is that our Lord went, not 
merely ‘‘ per Samaritanos in Galilaam,” Syr.-Pesh., but through the middle of 
both coufttries. See Lightfoot, Chron. Temp. § 62, and comp. Wieseler, Chron. 
Synops. p. 822. 

1 On this miracle, the characteristic of which is its deferred working till the 
faith of the sufferers was shown by their obedience to the Lord’s command, see 
Bp. Hall, Contempl. tv. 10, Trench, Notes on the Miracles, p. 882, --- who, how- 
ever, has adopted the not very probable interpretation referred to in the pre- 
ceding note; and compare Hook, Serm. on the Miracles, Vol. ii. p. 140, and a 
good practical sermon by Hare (A. W.), Sermons, Vol. ii. p. 457. 

2 It is very doubtful whether these incidents are to be assigned to the portion 
of the journey through Galilee, or to that through Perea. The latter view is 
adopted by Greswell, Dissert. xxx1. Vol. ii. p. 542; the former, however, seems 
slightly the most probable. See Lightfoot, Chron. Temp. § 62, 68, Vol. ii. p. 40 
(Roterod. 1686). 

3 There seems no reason for supposing, with Olshausen and others, that some 
intermediate remarks connecting this parable more closely with what precedes 
are here omitted. On the contrary, as ver. 7 seems to prove, the connection is 
close and immediate. When the Lord comes, He comes to avenge His own and 
free them from their foes, and that full surely. If an unjust earthly judge 
avenged her who called upon him, shall not a righteous heavenly Judge avenge 
the elect of God? See Meyer in loc. p. 441 (ed. 3), and on the parable generally, 


248 THE JOURNEYINGS TOWARD JERUSALEM. Lect. VI. 


the distinct notices both of St. Matthew and St. Mark, in 
tracing our Lord’s steps to the lands across 
the Jordan. Whether this journey extended 
to the more northern parts of Persea, where 
it will be remembered a few months before the four thou- 
sand were fed, and where the name of the God of Israel 
was so magnified, we cannot determine. The 
expressions of St. Matthew would rather lead 
us to the contrary opinion, and to the suppo- 
sition that our Lord passed directly onward to the portions 
nearer Juda’ in which He had preached a few weeks 
before, and to which we shall apparently be right in confin- 
ing the few remaining incidents which we meet with in 
this part of the inspired narrative.2 We observe there 
just what we should have expected from our remembrance 
of our Lord’s former sojourn in that country. We trace 
the same characteristics displayed by the two classes of 
our Lord’s hearers with which we are so familiar in earlier 
parts of the Gospel history, — thankful and 
even enthusiastic reception on the part of the 
multitude, craft and malignity on the part of the Pharisees 


Ch. 212.1. 
Ch, % 1. 


Matt. xv. 31. 
Ch. xix. 1. 


Matt. xix. 2. 


compare Greswell, Exposition of the Parables, Vol. iv. p. 213 sq., Trench, Notes 
on the Parables, p. 489. 

1 There is some little difficulty in the words ἦλθεν εἰς τὰ ὅρια τῆς ᾿Ιουδαίας 
πέραν Tov ᾿Ιορδάνου (Matt. xix. 1). Viewed simply, and with the remembrance 
that an insertion of the article before πέραν is not positively necessary (see 
Winer, Gr. § 20. 2), they would seem in accordance with the statement of 
Ptolemy (Geogr. v. 16. 9) that a certain portion of the province of Judwa 
actually lay on the eastern side of the Jordan; viewed, however, in connection 
with Mark x. 1, they seem rather to mark the general direction of our Lord’s 
journey, and might be paraphrased,—‘ He came to the frontiers of Judxa 
(ovK ἐπὶ τὰ μέσα, ἀλλ᾽ οἱονεὶ τά ἄκρα, Origen), His route lying on the other 
side of the Jordan.” Comp. Greswell, Dissert. xxx. Vol. ii. p. 542. 

2 In this arrangement nearly all harmonists are agreed; the only doubt, as has 
been before observed (p. 247, note 2), is whether these are the only incidents 
which belong to the journey through Perea. Greswell urges the apparent con- 
secutive character of the discourses, Luke xvii. 20—xviii. 14, but it may be said 
that there is really no greater break between Luke xvii. 19 and Luke xvii. 20, 
which Greswell disconnects, than between Luke xviii. 14 and Luke xviii. 15, 
which he unites. It must remain, then, a matter of opinion, the few arguments 
in favor of one arrangement being nearly of equal weight with those in favor of 
the other., 


Lect. VI. THE JOURNEYINGS TOWARD JERUSALEM. 249 


and their various adherents. The latter feelings are soon 
displayed in the insidious inquiry about the 
lawfulness of divorce, a question studiously 
chosen to place our Lord in antagonism 
either with the school of Hillel or with the school of 
Shammai, and thus to bring upon Him the hostility of 
one or other of two influential parties, if not also in some 
degree to involve Him with the adulterous Tetrarch in 
whose territory He then was.' In these same districts, 
and in touching contrast to all this craft, 
were the young children brought to our 
Lord, and blessed with the outward signs and tokens of 
His divine love.? Here, too, was the home of that rich 
young man whom Jesus looked on and loved, 
and of whom the melancholy notice is left, 
that worldly possessions kept him back from 
the kingdom of God.’ 

And now every step was leading our Lord and His 
Apostles nearer to Jerusalem, and every step éalls forth in 


Ch. xix. 3 sq. 
Mark x. 3 sq. 


Natt. xix. 13. 


Mark x. 21. 
Ver. 22. 


1 Compare De Wette on Matt. xix. 3, to whom the hint is due. The main 
design, however, as St. Matthew’s addition κατὰ πᾶσαν αἰτίαν (practically the 
language of the school of Hillel) seems clearly to show, was to induce our Lord 
to decide upon a question that was much in debate between two large parties, 
the school of Hillel adopting the lax view, the school of Shammai the more 
strict: ‘*Schola Shammeana, non permisit repudia nisi in causa adulterii, Hille- 
liana aliter.”” — Lightfoot in loc. Vol. ii. p. 345. Comp. Jost, Gesch. des Judenth- 
11. 3, 13, Vol. i. p. 257. 

2 We are distinctly told by St. Matthew the two blessings which the bringers of 
the children hope to receive for them at the hands of our Lord, —fva τὰς χεῖρας 
ἐπιϑῇ αὐτοῖς Kal προσεύξηται (ch. xix. 13). The former act, the imposition of 
hands, was probably regarded to some extent what it truly was, the outward 
sign of the conveyance of inward gifts and blessings (τὴν φρουρητικὴν ἑαυτοῦ 
δύναμιν, Euthym. Comp. Origen in Matt. Tom. xv. 6); the latter was regarded, 
and apparently not uncommonly sought for (see Buxtorf, Synag. cap. Vir. p. 138, 
Basil, 1661), as adding to the former the efficacies of holy and prevailing prayer. 
Rightly did the early Church see in this an argument for infant baptism. Com- 
pare Augustine, Serm. oxv. 4, Vol. ν. p. 657 (ed. Migné). 

3 That this young man was not a hypocrite, but one whom wealth and world- 
liness held in a thraldom that kept him from Christ, is justly maintained by 
Chrysostom (in Matt. Hom. 1,Χ111.}, who bases his opinion on Mark x. 21. The 
apocryphal version of the incident, said to come from the Evang. secundum 
Hebreos, is given by Origen in Matt. (Vet. Interpr.) Tom. xv. 14. See Hofmann, 
Leben Jesu, ὃ 71, p. 806. 


250 THE JOURNEYINGS TOWARD JERUSALEM. Lect. VI. 


the very outward demeanor of the Lord a manifestation 
of a dauntless resolution which awes and 
amazes! that shrinking and now foreboding 
company. The Lord now heads His band 
of followers, as St. Mark graphically men- 
tions, and leads the onward way. To the general com- 
pany of disciples, augmented as it now well might have 
been by many a worshipper that the festival was bringing 
up to Jerusalem, the Lord is silent; but to the chosen 
Twelve* He now again for the third time speaks of the 
future that awaited Him. Yet they could not 
or they would not understand. Nay, they 
seem, as on a former occasion, almost to have 
put a counter-interpretation on the words; for, strange as 
indeed it appears, this we learn was the hour 
that the sons of Zebedee and their mother 
preferred their ambitious request, and in fancy 
were enthroning themselves on the right hand and the left 
hand of their triumphant Master.’ 


Onward progress 
toward Jerusalem. 


Ch. x. 88. 


Matt. xx. 18. 
Luke ix. 46. 


Matt. xx. 20 sq. 
Mark x. 35 sq. 


1 The second reason assigned by Euthymius (on Mark x. 82) seems certainly 
the true one: “They were amazed, either at what He was saying, or because of 
His own accord He was going onward to His passion” (διότι ηὐτομόλει πρὸς τὸ 
dos ). 

2 It is distinctly told us by St. Matthew (ch. xx. 17) that this mournful com- 
munication was made privately (κατ᾽ ἰδίαν) to the Apostles. Comp. Mark x. 
32, Luke xviii. 31. The two other occasions on which the same sad future had 
been announced to them was in the neighborhood of Cxsarea Philippi, imme- 
diately after St. Peter’s confession (Matt. xvi. 21 sq., Mark viii. 80 sq., Luke ix. 
21 sq.), and not very long afterwards during the subsequent return to Caper- 
naum (Matt. xvii. 22 sq., Mark ix. 30 sq., Luke ix. 48 sq.). The reason for the 
private manner in which the communication was made is perhaps rightly given 
by Euthymius, — to avoid giving grounds of offence to the attendant multitudes. 

3 It is worthy of notice that the request is made by one from whom, according 
to our common estimate of his character, we should not have expected it, — St. 
John, the disciple whom Jesus loved. The attempt of Olshausen to explain 
away the request as a petition hereafter to enjoy the same privilege of nearness 
to our Lord (Comment. on Gospels, Vol. iii. p. 121, Clark) must certainly be 
rejected; such a desire was doubtless present, but the request itself was plainly 
one for προεδρία (Chrys.), a genuine characteristic of the glowing hearts of the 
Sons of Thunder. See above, p. 229, note 1. According to St. Matthew (ch. xx. 
20), the request was preferred by their mother, Salome. The explanation is 
obvious: the mother was the actual speaker, the two apostles were the instiga- 
tors; αἰσχυνόμενοι mpoBdAAovTa τὴν τεκοῦσαν, Chrysost. in Matt. Hom. Lxv. 
Vol. vii. p. 645 (ed. Bened. 2). 


Lect. VI. THE JOURNEYINGS TOWARD JERUSALEM. 251 


_ Jericho is soon reached; and there, as it would seem, at 
the entrance into the city, one, or, as St. Mat- 
thew specifies, éwo blind men? hail the Lord 
-with the same title that a few days ‘afterwards was heard 
from a thousand voices on the slopes of Oli- 
vet. They call unto the Son of David, whom 
as yet they saw not; they call, and they are 
healed. Begirt by the now increasing and glorifying mul- 
titude, the Lord enters the city. But praises soon change 
to general murmurings when the just and 
faithful Zaccheus is called down from the 
“sycamore-tree to entertain Him on whose divine form he 
would have rejoiced only to have gazed afar off, but whom 
now he was to be so blest as to welcome under the shadow 
of his roof. Still the heart of the people was 
moved. Wild hopes and expectations still 
pervade all hearts; and it is to allay them that the Lord 
now utters, both to the disciples and the 
multitude, the solemn parable of the Pounds, 
— that parable which, as St. Luke tells us, was specially 


‘Arrival at Jericho. 


Matt. xxi. 9. 
Mark x. 47. 


Luke xix. 7. 


Ver. 5. 


Ch. xix. 11. 


1 It is difficult to account for this seeming discrepancy, as there is not only a 
difference between St. Matthew and the second and third Evangelists as to nwm- 
ber, but between St. Luke and the first and second as to time. Perhaps, as 
seemed likely in the similar case of the Gadarene demoniacs (see above, p. 178, 
note 2), one of the blind men, Bartimzus, was better known (Augustine), and 
thus his cure more particularly specified. See Mark x. 44sq. If we add to this 
the further supposition that the one who is mentioned at our Lord’s entry into 
Jericho as having learnt from the crowd who it was that was coming into the 
city (Luke xviii. 37), was not healed then, but in company with another sufferer, 
when our Lord was leaving the city (Maldonatus, Bengel), we have perhaps 
the most probable solution of the difficulty that has yet been proposed. On this 
point and the miracle generally see Trench, Notes on the Miracles, p. 428 sq., and 
compare Origen, in Matt. Tom. xvi. 9, who adopts an allegorical mode of recon- 
ciliation, Augustine, de Consens. Evang. 11. 65, Vol. iii. p. 1167, Serm. LXXXVIII. 
Vol. v. p. 589 (ed. Migné), and Lange, Leben Jesu, 11. 6.1, Part 11. p. 1158. 

2 The language of St. Luke (ἐζήτει ἰδεῖν τὸν Ἰησοῦν Tis ἐστιν, ch. xix. 8) 
would seem to imply that Zacchzeus was anxious to behold the person and out- 
ward form of our Lord, and distinguish it from that of the bystanders. That 
this was not from curiosity, but from a far deeper feeling,— perhaps presenti- 
ment, —seems clear from what followed: εἶδεν αὐτὸν τοῖς ὀφϑάλμοις τῆς ἂν- 
ϑρωπότητος, προεῖδε γὰρ αὐτὸν τοῖς ὀφϑάλμοις τῆς ϑεότητος, Euthymius, in 
loc. On the title ἀρχιτελώνης, compare p. 85. note 1. 


252 THE JOURNEYINGS TOWARD JERUSALEM. Lect. VI. 


designed to check the hope that God’s kingdom was 
speedily to be revealed. 

In the same noticeable attitude, as is again specially 
mentioned, at the head of His followers, the 
Lord soon journeys onward towards Jeru- 
salem, and reaches Bethany six days? before 
his last Passover. 

And here our present section, and our extended though, 
alas, hasty survey of the concluding year of our Lord’s 
ministry, comes to its close. 

I will delay you with no practical comments, — for the 
time is far spent, — but I will conclude with the deep and 


Luke xix. 11. 
John xii. 1. 


1 Apparently two reasons are given by St. Luke why our Lord uttered this 
parable, —‘“‘ because He was nigh to Jerusalem,” and ‘“ because the kingdom of 
God should immediately appear” (ch. xix. 11). The two reasons, however, 
really only amount to one, our Lord’s journey to Jerusalem being connected in 
the mind of the populace (as was fully shown two or three days later) with the 
establishment there of His future kingdom: ‘‘ They deemed,” says Euthymius, 
“that for this cause He was now going up that He might reign therein.” On 
the parable itself, which is obviously very similar to, but not on that account to 
be regarded as identical with, the parable of the talents (Matt. xxv. 14), see 
Greswell, Exposition of the Parables, Vol. iv. p. 418 sq., Trench, Notes on the 
Parables, p. 234 sq. 

2 There is some little difficulty as to the date of our Lord’s arrival at Bethany. 
It is definitely fixed by St. John as mpd ἐξ ἡμερῶν τοῦ πάσχα (ch. xii. 1), and 
thus, according to the ordinary meaning of the words and the usual mode of 
reckoning, would seem to be Nisan 8, the Passover being Nisan 14. Now, as it 
seems certain that our Lord suffered on a Friday, and as it is scarcely less cer- 
tain that, according to St. John (ch. xiii. 1, xviii. 28, xix. 4), the Passover was 
eaten on that same day, it will follow that Nisan 8, or the day of our Lord’s 
arrival at Bethany, will coincide with the preceding Saturday, or with the Jew- 
ish Sabbath. Of this difficulty various solutions have been proposed, the most 
elaborate of which is that of Greswell (Dissert. xxxvu11. Vol. iii. p. 51 sq.), 
according to which our Lord came from Jericho to a place a few miles from 
Bethany, assumed to be the house of Zacchzeus, on Friday eve, and on Saturday 
eve, after sunset, went onward to Bethany. This appears so complicated, that it 
is better either (a) to admit that our Lord arrived on Nisan 8, but to leave the 
circumstances and time of the arrival unexplained (Liicke, Meyer, Alford), or 
(Ὁ) to conceive that St. John, writing generally, does not here include the days 
from which and to which the six days are reckoned, and that thus our Lord 
arrived at, Bethany on Friday, Nisan 7. Comp. Tischendorf, Syn. Ew. p. ΧΙ. 
It is worthy of consideration, however, whether (c) our Lord might not have 
arrived on Friday eve just after the Sabbath commenced, so that the day of His 
arriyal was really, according to Jewish reckoning, Nisan 8. Discussions of this 
question will be found in the various commentaries. Compare also Bynzus, de 
Morte Christi, 1. 3.12, Vol. i. p. 188 sq., Schneckenburger, Beitrage, p. 14. 


Lect. VI. THE JOURNEYINGS TOWARD JERUSALEM. 253 


earnest prayer that I may have awakened in some hearts 
a fresh desire to ponder over for themselves 
the connections of the blessed history of their 
own and the world’s redemption. The close study of it 
may require all our highest powers, and tax all our freshest 
energies; but believe me, brethren, the consolations of that 
study no tongue of men or angels can fully tell. While 
we are so engaged we do indeed feel the deep meaning 
of what an apostle has called the “comfort” of the word 
of God. Though at times we may seem as 
yet in doubtfulness or perplexity, yet soon, 
very soon, all becomes clear and comforting. Lights break 
around our path; assurance becomes more sure; hopes 
burn brighter; love waxes warmer; sorrows become joys, 
and joys the reflections of the unending felicities of the 
kingdom of Christ. Around us and about us we feel the 
deepening influence of the Eternal Son. All inward 
things, yea, too, all outward things, appear to us verily 
transfigured and changed. We cast our eyes abroad on 
earth; ’t is the earth that He trod, and earth seems bright 
and blessed. We raise our eyes to the heavens, and we 
know that He is there; we gaze, and faith 

rolls back those everlasting doors; yea, we ~ 


seem to see the vision of beauty, and in our spirit we 
behold our God. 


Conclusion. 


Rom. xv. 4. 


Isa. xxxiti. 17. 


22 


LECTURE VII. 


THE LAST PASSOVER. 


BEHOLD, WE GO UP TO JERUSALEM, AND ALL THINGS THAT ARE WRITTEN 
BY THE PROPHETS CONCERNING THE SON OF MAN SHALL BE ACCOM-— 
PLISHED. — St. Luke xviii. 31. 


WE have now entered upon a portion of the inspired 
narrative which, no less in its general and 

nomen outward features than in the subjects on 
which it treats, is strikingly different from 

any other portion that we have yet attempted to consider. 
Hitherto in only a very few, and those scattered parts of 
the sacred history, has the united testimony of the four 
Evangelists been vouchsafed to us in reference to the same 
facts... Sometimes one of the inspired writers has been 
our principal guide, sometimes another. What one has left 
unnoticed another has often been moved to record; but 
seldom have all related to us the same events, or even 
dwelt in equal proportions upon the same general divisions 


1In the large portion of the Gospel history which we have now considered, 
apparently not more than three or four cases can be found in which the same 
speech, subject, or event is specified by all the four sacred writers. The jirst 
instance, perhaps, is the declaration of the Baptist as to the relation in which he 
stood to our Lord. With Matt. iii. 11 sq., Mark i. 7 sq., Luke iii. 16 sq., compare 
John i. 26, but observe that the words which are approximately the same in the 
four narratives were uttered on more than one occasion, and to different hearers. 
The second instance is the narrative of our Lord’s baptism, which, as related by 
the Baptist (John i. 82), may be compared with the notices of the Synoptical 
writers (Matt. iii. 16 sq., Mark i. 10 sq., Luke iii. 21 sq.). The third is the account 
of the feeding of the five thousand, where John vi. 1 sq. is clearly parallel with 
Matt. xiv. 13 sq., Mark vi. 82 sq., Luke ix.10sq. St. Peter’s profession of faith 
in our Lord may perhaps be considered a fourth case; but it must be remem- 
bered that the occasions were different: the first profession (John vi. 68) being 
made at Capernaum, the second (Matt. xvi. 16, Mark viii. 29, Luke ix. 20) in the. 
neighborhood of Cesarea Philippi. See above, Lecture v. p. 198, note 2. 


Lect. VII. THE LAST PASSOVER. 255 


of the Gospel history. Not unfrequently indeed have we 
enjoyed the privilege of the combined testimony of two 
of the sacred writers, and not much less frequently even 
of the first three;’ but αὖ present anything like a con- 
tinuously concurrent testimony, even in the case of the 
Synoptical Gospels, has rarely presented itself except for 
very limited periods of the time over which their records 
extend. 

We may verify this by a brief retrospect. We may 
remember, for instance, how in the earliest 
portions of the Gospel history the appointed Cerri or 
witness seemed to be, preéminently though τίοπ of te narra- 
not exclusively, St. Luke, and how again in 
the brief narrative of the early ministry in Judea almost 
our only guide was found to be St. John.2 It may be 
remembered, further, that of portions of our Lord’s minis- 
try in eastern Galilee we often had the blessing of three 
records, but that in reference to the order of the events we 
appeared to have reasons for relying more on the narrative 
of the second and third Evangelists than on that of the 
more grouped records of St. Matthew.? Of the ministry 


1 The exact numerical proportions in which the discourses, subjects, or events 
specified by three of the Evangelists stand with respect to those related only by 
two can hardly be satisfactorily stated, owing to the differences of opinion about 
some of these coincidences, and still more to the obvious fact that the relations 
between the three Synoptical gospels are continually changing. As a general 
statement, however, it may be said that the combined testimony of the first three 
Evangelists preponderates in the narrative of the ministry in eastern Galilee, but 
that in the narrative of the north-Galilean ministry the instances are not many 
where we have the testimony of more than two, principally St. Matthew. See 
above, Lect. v. p. 192. The whole question of these correspondences is one of great 
importance, as affecting our opinion of the origin and relations of the first three 
Gospels, but far too long to be comprised in the limits of a single note. The 
attention of the student may, however, be called to the fact, that exact verbal 
coincidences are much more frequent in the recital ef words spoken than in 
merely narrative portions ; and, again, that the ratio of coincidence in narrative 
to that in recital is strikingly different in the first three Evangelists, the ratio in 
St. Matthew being as 1 to a little more than 2, in St. Mark as 1 to 4, and in St. 
Luke 851 010. See especially the good discussion in Norton, Evidences of the 
Genuineness of the Gospels, Vol. i. p. 289 (ed. 2), where the consideration of these 
numerical relations appears to lead to satisfactory results. 

2 See above the important quotation from Eusebius, Lect. Iv. p. 146, note 1. 

8 See above, Lect. Iv. p. 149 sq., where a statement will be found of the four 


256 THE LAST PASSOVER. Lecr. VII. 


in northern Galilee, we have seen that but little has been 
recorded by the historian-Evangelist St. Luke; but again, 
that of our Lord’s concluding ministry in Judea and 
Perza we should have known almost nothing if he had 
not been specially moved to record that striking series 
of connected events and discourses’ which occupied our 
attention in the concluding part of the foregoing Lecture. 
Thus varied would seem to be the general aspect of 
those parts of the inspired narrative to which 

hepnsit pris Wwe have hitherto confined our meditations. 
Now, however, we meet with a striking and 

yet not unlooked-for change. If all the three solemn pre- 
dictions of our Lord’s sufferings were thought to be of 
such moment that they have been specially recorded by 
all the three Synoptical Evangelists, surely it would not 
be too much to expect that the mournful record of the 
verification of those prophecies should be given, not by 
two only, or by three, but by all. The history of the suf- 
ferings whereby mankind was redeemed must be told by 
no fewer in number than the holy four. The fulfilment 


principal reasons for adopting the order of St. Mark and St. Luke rather than 
that of St. Matthew. Compare also Lect. I. p. 35 sq. 

1 It has been already implied, but may be more distinctly stated, that the great 
peculiarity of the large portion of St. Luke’s Gospel, extending from the end of 
the 9th to the middle of the 19th chapter, is the close connection that appears 
to exist between the incidents mentioned, or alluded to, and the discourses which 
followed. It would seem almost as if the former were only noticed as serving to 
introduce and give force to the weighty words which followed. Compare Luke 
xi. 87 sq., xii. 1 sq., xiii. 1 sq., 28 sq., xiv. 1 sq., xv. 1 sq., al. Some careful com- 
ments on this portion of St. Luke’s Gospel, though not always such as can be 
fully accepted, will be found in Greswell, Dissert. xxx1. Vol. ii. p. 517 sq. 

2 The prediction uttered near Caesarea Philippi is specified in Matt. xvi. 21 sq., 
Mark yiii. 30 sq., and Luke ix. 21 sq.; the prediction near or on the way to 
Capernaum, in Matt. xvii. 22 sq., Mark ix. 81 sq., Luke ix. 44; the prediction in 
Perea on the way to Jericho, in Matt. xx. 17sq., Mark x. 82 sq., Luke xviii. 
81 sq. 

3 It may be noticed as a matter of curiosity, that the Apocryphal Gospels, 
which we have long lost sight of, new again come before us. With the excep- 
tion of an account of our Lord’s appearance in the temple when twelve years 
old (Evang. Inf. Arab. cap. 50 sq., Evang. Thom. cap. 19), a few scattered notices 
of our Lord’s baptism (see Hofmann, Leben Jesu, § 69, p. 299), and the narrative 
of the rich young man (see above, p. 249, note 3), we meet with no attempts to 
add anything to the Gospel history since the “eriod of the infancy. Now, how- 


Lecr. VII. THE LAST PASSOVER. ΘΟ 


of type and shadow, of the hopes of patriarchs, of the 
expectations of prophets, yea, and of the dim longings of 
a whole lost and sinful world, must be declared by the 
whole Evangelistic company; the four streams that go 
forth to water the earth’ must here meet in a common 
channel; the four winds of the Spirit of Life? must here 
be united and one. 

For such a dispensation of wisdom and grace, ere we 
presume to dwell upon it, let us offer up our adoring 
thanks. Let us bless God for this fourfold heritage; let us 
praise the Eternal Spirit that thus moved the hearts and 
guided the pens of these appointed witnesses, and then 
with all lowliness and reverence address ourselves to the 
momentous task of attempting so far to combine their holy 
narratives as to bring before our minds, in all its fulness 
and completeness, the record of the six concluding days 
of the Lord’s earthly ministry, — the six days in which a 
world was re-created, and the last fearful efforts of the 
rulers of its darkness met, quelled, and tri- 
umphed over forevermore. 

The last incident, it will be remembered, to which we 
alluded in the preceding Lecture, was the 
short stay of our Lord at Jericho, and the πὸ οτος 
subsequent journey to Bethany. He had our, 
now again passed along the wild and unsafe 
road* that leads from the plain of Jericho to the uplands of 


Eph. vi. 12. 


ever, in the Evangelium Nicodemi we find the apocryphal narrative resumed, 
and are furnished with accounts (not wholly undeserving of notice) of our Lord’s 
trial, and of the events which followed. See Tischendorf, Hvang. Apocr. p. 208 
sq-., and compare Hofmann, Zeben Jesu, § 78 sq. 

1 Jerome, Pref. in Matt. cap. 4, Vol. vii. p. 18 (ed. Migné). 

2 This second simile is a modification of one which occurs in a curious passage 
in Irenzus, which, though not very convincing, may bear citation as incidentally 
showing how completely at that early age the fowr, and only the four, Gos- 
pels were accepted throughout the Church. ‘“ Since there are four regions of the 
world,” says this ancient writer, “‘in which we live, and four cardinal winds, 
and the Church has become spread over the whole earth, and the Gospel is the 
pillar and support of the Church, and the breath of life, it is meet that it should 
have four pillars breathing on all sides incorruption, and refreshing mankind.” 
Adv. Her. 111. 11., p. 221 (ed. Grabe). 

3 This road, though connecting two places of great importance, seems almost 


22" 


258 THE LAST PASSOVER. Lect. VIL. 


Judza, and was now, possibly late on the Friday evening, 
in the abode of that highly-favored household, which, as 
the fourth Evangelist tells us, our Lord vouchsafed to 
regard with feelings of affection and love. 
There, in the retirement of that mountain- 
hamlet of Bethany,? —a retirement soon to 
be broken in upon, —the Redeemer of the world may 
with reason be supposed to have spent His last earthly 
Sabbath. There, too, either in their own house, or, as seems 
more probable, in the house of one who probably owed to 
our Lord his return to the society of his fellow-men,’ did 
that loving household “make a supper” for 
their divine Guest. Joyfully and thankfully 
did each one of that loving family instinctively do that 
which might seem most to tend to the honor and glorifica- 
tion of Him whom one of them had declared to be, and 


John xi. 5. 
John xit. 9. 


John xii. 2. 


always to have been infested by robbers (Jerome on Jerem. iii. 2), and to have 
been deemed notoriously dangerous to the traveller. See Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr. 
in Luc. X. 80, It was the scene of the striking parable of the Good Samaritan, 
and was now being traversed, apparently for the second time (the first being on 
the occasion of the sickness and death of Lazarus), by Him whom several writers 
of the early Church (Origen, Ambrose, Augustine, al.) regarded as shadowed 
forth by the merciful stranger of His own parable. For an account of the road, 
see Thomson, The Land and The Book, Vol. ii. p. 440 sq.; and for a very power- 
ful sketch of a wild portion of it, with the plain of Jericho below, see Roberts, 
Holy Land, Vol. ii. Plate 15. 

1 See above, p. 252, note 2. 

2 The village of Bethany (according to Lightfoot, "2°71 A ‘house of dates”) 
lies on the eastern slope of Olivet, in a shallow and partially wooded valley, and 
in a direction about E.S.E. from Jerusalem, and at a distance of about fifteen 
furlongs (John xi. 18), or between half and three quarters of an hourin time. It 
is now called ‘‘el-’Aziriyeh,” from the tomb of Lazarus, which is still pretended 
to be shown there, and is described by travellers as a poor and somewhat forlorn 
hamlet of about twenty houses. See Robinson, Palestine, Vol. i. p. 482 (ed. 2), 
Thomson, The Land and the Book, Vol. ii. p. 599, Stanley, Palestine, p. 188; and 
for views of it, Roberts, Holy Land, Vol. ii. Plate 18, Robertson and Beato, 
Views of Jerusalem, No. 30, and Frith, Egypt and Palestine, Part xx1v. 8. 

8 It has been conjectured, and perhaps rightly, that Simon ‘the leper,” at 
whose house the supper would seem to have been prepared (Matt. xxvi. 6, Mark 
xiv. 3), had formerly suffered under this frightful disease, and had been healed 
by our Lord. Compare Meyer on Matt. xxvi.6. The connection in which he 
stood to Lazarus and his sisters is wholly unknown to us; according to Theophy- 
lact he was the father (comp. Ewald, Gesch. Christus’, p. 357); according to some 
modern writers, the husband of Martha (Greswell, Dissert. Vol. 11. p. 554), or, as 
seems perhaps slightly more probable, a friend of the family. 


Lect. VII. THE LAST PASSOVER. 259 


whom they all knew to be, the Son of God’ that was to 
come into the world. So Martha serves; 
Lazarus, it is specially noticed, takes his place 
at the table, the visible, living proof of the 
omnipotence of his Lord; Mary performs the tender office 
of a mournfully foreseeing love, that thought 
nought too pure or too costly for its God, — 
that tender office which, though grudgingly rebuked by 
Judas, and, alas! others than Judas, who, 
could not appreciate the depths of such a oo 
devotion, nevertheless received a praise which Dae EEE 
it has been declared shall evermore hold its place on the 
peges of the Book of Life. 

But that Sabbath soon passed away. Ere night came 
on, numbers, even of those who were sel- 
dom favorably disposed to our Lord, now? © eam. a em 
came to see both Him and the living monu- “0: 
ment of His merciful omnipotence. The Reishi y 
morrow probably brought more of these half- 
curious, half-awed, yet, as it would now seem in a great 


John xi. 27. 
Ch. xii. 2. 


Ver. 3. 


1 On the title ‘‘ Son of God” see above, Lect. v. p. 196, note 1, and also Lect. 
VI. p. 239, note 1. It can scarcely be doubted that on the occasion referred to 
(John xi. 27) Martha had a general if not a theologically precise belief in our 
Lord’s divinity. Now, that belief would naturally have become still clearer and 
fuller, and probably evinced itself in all these acts of duteous and loving service. 

2 For the arguments by which it would appear almost certain that the present 
anointing is not identical with that in the house of Simon the Pharisee (Luke 
vii. 36), see above, p. 178, note 2, and compare Ebrard, Kritik der Evang. Gesch. 
4 96, p. 478. The incident is related by St. Matthew and St. Mark after the 
triumphal entry,—not as having happened then, but as standing in suitable 
connection with the mention of the betrayal of Judas, the workings of whose 
evil heart, as we know from St. John, were fully displayed on the occasion of 
this supper. See Wieseler, Synops. p. 891 sq. 

3 It seems reasonable to.suppose that at atime of such Jarge popular gather- 
ings the strict observance of the Sabbath-day’s journey might in some measure 
have been relaxed. Even, however, without this assumption, we may suppose 
these eager visitants to have arrived at Bethany soon after the Sabbath was 
over, having performed the permitted part of the distance (five or six stades) 
before the Sabbath legally ended, and the rest afterwards. The news that our 
Lord was there could easily have been spread by those who journeyed with Him 
from Jericho on the Friday, and who themselves went on direct to Jerusalem. 
On the length of a Sabbath-day’s journey, see Winer, RWB., Art. ‘‘ Sabbath- 
sweg,” Vol. ii. p. 851, Greswell, Dissert. XXXVIII. Vol. iii. p. 70. 


200 THE LAST PASSOVER. Lect. VIL. 


measure, believing visitants. The deep heart of the peo- 
ple was stirred, and the time was fully come when ancient 
- prophecy was to receive its fulfilment, and 

the daughter of Zion was to welcome her 
King.’ Yea, and in kingly state shall He come. Begirt 
not only by the smaller band of His own disciples, but 
by the great and now hourly increasing multitude, our 
Lord leaves the little wooded vale that had ministered 
to Him its Sabbath-day of seclusion and repose, and 
directs His way onward to Jerusalem. As yet, however, 
in but humble guise, and as a pilgrim among pilgrims, 
He traverses the rough mountain-track which the modern 
traveller can even now somewhat hopefully identify ;* 
every step bringing Him nearer to the ridge of Olivet, and 
to that hamlet or district of Bethphage, the exact site of 
which it is so hard to fix, but which was separated perhaps 
only by some narrow valley from the road along which the 
procession was now wending its way.’ But the Son of 


Zech. ix. 9. 


1 This prophecy, we are told distinctly by St. John (ch. xii. 16), was not under- 
stood by the disciples as now being fulfilled till after our Lord had been glorified. 
The illumination of the Holy Ghost then enabled them both to call to mind the 
words of this particular prophecy (observe the thrice-repeated ταῦτα) and to 
recognize the occasion on which it was thus signally fulfilled. See Meyer on 
John xii. 16. 

2 See Stanley, Sinai and Palestine, p. 189 sq., where this triumphal entry is 
extremely well described and illustrated. In deference to the opinion and argu- 
ments of this observant traveller, who has himself seen and considered the 
locality in reference to the very event we are now considering, it has been 
assumed in the text that our Lord proceeded, not by the traditional route over 
the summit of Olivet, but by the most southern of the three routes from Bethany 
to Jerusalem. We must not, however, forget that the present appearance of 
the city from Olivet and the appearance of the city in the time of our Lord, 
when the eastern wall certainly ran much within the present line of wall 
(see the plans by Ferguson in Smith, Dict. of Bible, Vol. i. pp. 1028, 1032), must 
certainly have been different, and that the statements of the modern traveller 
must always be subjected to this correction. Views of the city from Olivet are 
very numerous. See, however, especially, Williams, Holy City, Vol. i. Frontis- 
piece, Roberts, Holy Land, Vol. i. Plate 4, 16, Frith, Egypt and Palestine, Part 
ΧΥΠΙ. 1, 2, and for a view of the roads down the side of Olivet, Williams, Vol. 
i. p. 318, and compare Stanley, Palestine, Ὁ. 156. 

3 The site of this village or district has not yet been satisfactorily determined. 
See Robinson, Palestine, Vol. i. p. 433, but compare also Van de Velde, Memoir 
to Map, p. 297. The most reasonable view seems to be that Bethphage (SAB O75, 
** house of figs”) was a village or hamlet not far from Bethany, but nearer to 


Lect. VII. THE LAST PASSOVER. 261, 


David must not solemnly enter the city of David as a 
scarcely distinguishable wayfarer amid a mixed and way- 
faring throng. Prophecy must have its full and exact ful- 
filment; the King must approach the city of the King with 
some meek symbols of kingly majesty. With haste, it 
would seem, two disciples are despatched to the village 
over against them, to bring to Him “who 

had need of it” the colt “whereon yet never pi sie ἫΝ 
man sat;” with haste the zealous followers το ον 

cast upon it their garments, and, all uncon- 

scious of the significant nature of their act, place thereon 
their Master, the coming King. Strange it would have 
been if feelings such as now were eagerly stirring in every 
heart had not found vent in words. Strange indeed if, 
with the Hill of Zion now breaking upon their view,' the 
long prophetic past had not seemed to mingle with the 
present, and evoke those shouts of mysterious 
welcome and praise which, first beginning 
with the disciples and those immediately round our Lord, 
soon were heard from every mouth of that glorifying mul- 
titude. And not from them alone. Numberless others 


Ver. 87. 


Jerusalem (hence the order in Mark xi. 1; compare Luke xix. 29), and situated 
at no great distance from one of the roads connecting these two places. Com- 
pare Matt. xxi.2, τὴν κώμην τὴν ἀπέναντι ὑμῶν ; Mark xi. 2, THY κώμην Thy 
κατέναντι ὑμῶν ; Luke xix. 30, τὴν κατέναντι KHunv,—in all which places Beth- 
phage appears to be referred to. The apparently less probable supposition that 
it was a district rather than a village, has been advocated by Lightfoot, Cent. 
Chorogr. in Matt. cap. 37, Vol. ii. p. 198 (Roterod. 1686). Comp. also Williams, 
Holy City, Vol. ii. p. 442 sq. 

1 See Stanley, Sina? and Palestine, p. 190, where it is stated that, on reaching 
the ridge of the southern slope of Olivet, by the road above alluded to, the trav- 
eller obtains a view of Mount Zion and that portion of Jerusalem which was 
more especially connected with the memory of David, as the site of his palace. 
The temple and the more northern parts would not be seen at present, being hid 
from view by an intervening slope on the right. 

2 This would seem to be the correct reconciliation of Luke xix. 37 with Matt. 
xxi. 9 and Mark xi.9. The disciples that were round our Lord first raise the 
jubilant shouts, the multitudes both before and behind (Matt. J. c.) take them 
up immediately afterwards. St. John specifies some of the acclamations, but 
more particularly gives us the subject of the testimony which the multitude pub- 
licly bare to our Lord, viz., that He had raised Lazarus from the dead (ch. xii. 
17), and thus incidentally supplies the reason why they so readily joined in these 
shouts of triumph. Compare Ewald, Gesch. Christus’, p. 384. 


262 THE LAST PASSOVER. Lect. VI. 


there were fast streaming up Olivet, a palm-branch in every 
hand, to greet the Raiser of Lazarus and the 
Conqueror of Death. And now alljoin. One 
common feeling of holy enthusiasm now pervades that 
mighty multitude, and displays itself in befitting acts. 
Garments are torn off and cast down? before 
the Holy One; green boughs bestrew the 
way; Zion’s King rides onward in meek maj- 
esty, a thousand voices before and a thousand voices 
behind rising up to heaven with hosannas and with 
mingled words of magnifying acclamation, some of which 
once had been sung to the Psalmist’s harp, 
and some heard even from angelic tongues. 
.... But the hour of triumph was the hour 
of deepest and most touching compassion. If, as we have 
ventured to believe, the suddenly opening view of Zion 
may have caused the excited feelings of that thronging 
multitude to pour themselves forth in words of exalted and 
triumphant praise, full surely we know from the inspired 
narrative that, on our Redeemer’s nearer ap- 
proach to the city, as it rose up, perhaps sud- 
denly,” in all its extent and magnificence before Him who 


John xii. 13. 


Matt. xxi. 8. 
Ver. 8. 


Ps. cxviti. 26. 
Luke ii. 14. 


Luke xix. 41. 


1 Most of the recent expositors of this passage have appropriately referred to 
the curious incident, mentioned by Dr. Robinson (Palestine, Vol. i. p. 478, ed. 2), 
of the people of Bethlehem casting their garments on the way before the horses 
of the English consul of Damascus when supplicating his assistance and inter- 
cession. The same writer briefly illustrates, by modern usage, the act of the 
disciples casting their cloaks (why does Dr. Thomson, in Smith’s Dict. of Bible, 
Vol. i. p. 1064, go out of his way to specify them as “‘ ragged ”’?) upon the foal to 
serve as a saddle. — Palestine, Vol. ii. p. 219. Such is the enduring nature of 
Eastern habits. 

2 We learn from Dr. Stanley (Sinai and Palestine, p. 191) that at a particular 
point of the southern road the traveller reaches a ledge of smooth rock from 
which the whole city, rising up, as it were, ‘out of a deep abyss,” is suddenly 
beheld in all its extent. Compare the view in Williams, Holy City, Vol. i., Front- 
ispiece, which seems to illustrate this description. It seems too much to venture, 
with Dr. Stanley, positively to identify this spot with that where the Saviour 
paused and wept, especially as it is by no means certain (see above, p. 260, note 
2) that this was the route actually taken; still we may perhaps permit ourselves 
to believe that our Saviour’s affecting address was synchronous with and per- 
haps suggested by the sudden opening out of some widely extended view of the 
magnificent city. The view from the summit of Olivet is noticed by Dr. Robin- 


Leov. VII. THE LAST PASSOVER. 263 


even now beheld the trenches cast about it, and Roman 
legions mustering round its fated walls, tears 
fell from those divine eyes; yea, the Saviour 
of the world wept over the city wherein He had come to 
suffer and to die. ... The lengthening procession again 
moves onward, slowly descending into the deep valley of 
the Cedron, and slowly winding up the opposite slope, until 
at length, by one of the eastern gates, it passes into one 
of the now crowded? thoroughfares of the Holy City. 
Such was the Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem; such 
the most striking event, considered with ref- 
erence to the nation, on which we have as ait credibility 
: β of the narrative. 
yet meditated. It was no less than a public 
recognition of Jesus of Nazareth as the long looked-for 
Messiah, the long and passionately expected theocratic 
King. Though, as the sequel shows, only transitory and 
evanescent, it was still a recognition, plain, distinct, and 
historical, and exactly of such a nature as tends to increase 


Ver. 43. 


son, and described as “not particularly interesting,” and as embracing little 
more than a “dull, mixed mass of roofs and domes.’ — Palestine, Vol. i. p. 286 
(ed. 2). 

1 It is now hardly possible to form a just conception of the appearance which 
Jerusalem and its vicinity must have presented at the season of the Passover. 
All the open ground near the city, and perhaps the sides of the very hill down 
which our Lord had recently passed, were now, probably, being covered with 
the tents and temporarily erected structures of the gathering multitudes, who 
even thus early would have most likely found every available abode in the city 
completely full. Weare not left without some data of the actual amount of the 
gathered numbers, as we have a calculation of Josephus, based upon the num- 
ber of lambs sacrificed (256,500), according to which it would appear that even at 
the very low estimate of ten persons to each lamb, the number of people assem- 
bled must have been little short of two millions seven hundred thousand, with- 
out taking into consideration those that were present but incapacitated by legal 
impurities from being partakers in the sacrifice. See Bell. Jud. vi. 9. 8, and 
compare Bell. Jud. 11.14. 8, where the number is with more probability set down 
at about three millions. There would thus have been present not much short of 
half of the probable population of Judza and Galilee. See Greswell, Dissert. 
xxi. Append. Vol. iv. p. 494. These observations are not without importance, 
considered theologically. They show that our Lord’s rejection and death is not 
merely to be laid to the malevolence of the party of the Sanhedrin, and to the 
wild clamors of a city mob, but may justly be considered, though done in partial 
ignorance (Acts iii. 17), the act of the nation. When Pilate made his proposal, it 
was to the multitude (Mark xv. 9), and that multitude we know was unanimous 
(John xviii. 40). 


264 THE LAST PASSOVER. Lor. VIL. 


in the highest degree our convictions of the living truth 
of the inspired narrative. Let us pause a moment only to 
observe how marvellously it sets forth no less the sacred 
dignity than the holy decorum of the accepted homage. 
Let us only observe with wonder and reverence how not a 
single prerogative of the Messiah was waived or foregone, 
and how not even the most bitter opponent of the truth? 
can dare, with any show of reason or justice, to assert that 
the faintest appeal was here made to the prejudices or 
passions of the multitude. Let us mark, on the one hand, 
how, ere the multitude begin to greet their Lord with the 
words of a Messianic psalm,? He Himself vouchsafes them 
a Messianic sign, and how, when the Pharisees urge our 
Lord to silence the commencing acclama- 
tions, He refuses with an answer at once 
decided and sublime. Let us mark again, on the other 
hand, how the object of all that jubilant reverence shows 
in the plainest way the spiritual nature of His triumph 
and of His kingdom, when on His nearer approach He 
pauses and weeps over the city to which He was advanc- 
ing with such kingly majesty. Was this the way to appeal 
to the political passions of the multitude? Was this what 
worldly prudence would have suggested as the most hope- 
ful mode of assuming the attributes of such a Messiah 


Luke xix. 39. 


1 The various objections in detail which modern scepticism has endeavored to 
bring against the inspired narrative do not appear in any way to deserve our 
attention, or require any further confutation than they have already received. 
For notices of them, and short but sufficient answers, see Ebrard, Kritik der 
Evang. Gesch. § 97, p. 476. The general objection, however, or rather false 
representation, alluded to, and briefly discussed in the text, deserves a passing 
notice and exposure. It was advanced, towards the close of the last century, by 
the compiler of the notorious Wolfenbiittel Fragments, and has often been 
repeated in later sceptical writings. When we read the inspired accounts, and 
observe how they incidentally disclose everything that was most opposed to 
political demonstration, it may seem doubtful whether the impiety of such a 
theory is not even exceeded by its improbability and its total want of all histor- 
ical credibility. 

2The comment of Hilary is not without point: ‘‘ Laudationis verba redemp- 
tionis in eo exprimunt potestatem, nam Osanna Hebraico sermone significa~- 
tur redemptio [domus Davyid].””— Comment. in Matt. Canon xxI1. p. 567 (Paris 
1631). 


Lect. VIL. THE LAST PASSOVER. 265 


as was then looked for by popular enthusiasm?! No, it 
cannot be. Here at least let scepticism fairly own that 
it is at fault—plainly, palpably at fault. If it affects to 
value truth, let it own that here at least there is a sober 
reality wholly irreconcilable with assumptions of mistaken 
enthusiasm or political adventure, here a life and a truth 
with which the subtlest combinations of thought could 
never have animated a mythical narrative. 

But let us pass onward. No sooner had our Lord entered 
the city than all was amazed inquiry and 
commotion. The recognition, as far as we 7”) Jorasenty 
ean infer from the sacred narrative, would 
seem to have heen speedy and general;? not indeed in 
those exalted strains which had just been heard on Olivet, 
yet still in a manner which probably served to show how 
true was the bitter admission of the Pharisees one to an- 
other, that the whole “world had gone after 
Him,” and that all their efforts were at present 
of no avail. Yet by no outward acts, if we adopt what 
seems on the whole the most probable connection of the 
sacred narrative,’ did our Lord as yet respond to those 


John xii. 19. 


1 It, perhaps, cannot be doubted that at the present time numbers trusted that 
they beheld in our Lord the mighty Deliverer and Restorer whose advent was 
so earnestly and so eagerly looked for. See Luke xxiv. 21, and compare Acts 
i.6. Still it seems by no means improbable that with all this there was also sucha 
growing feeling that the expected kingdom was to be at least as much of a spir- 
itual as of a temporal nature (compare Luke xix. 11), that even the most enthu- 
siastic did not perhaps generally associate with the Lord’s present triumphal 
entry many well-defined expectations of purely political results and successes. 
Comp. Ewald, Gesch. Christus’, p. 381. The nature of their acclamations seems 
confirmatory of this view. 

2 We may observe the characteristic way in which the inquiry is made and the 
answer returned. The people in the city at present share but little in the enthu- 
siasm of the entering multitudes; their only question is, Tis ἐστιν οὗτος (Matt. 
xxi. 10). The answer is given by the ὄχλοι; mainly, as it would seem, though 
probably not exclusively those who were now accompanying our Lord, and not 
perhaps without a tinge of provincial and local pride: Οὗτός ἐστιν ὃ προφήτης 
Ἰησοῦς [Rec. Ἰησοῦς ὃ προφήτη5] ὃ ἀπὸ NaCaped τῆς Γαλιλαίας. See Meyer 
én loc. p. 389 (ed. 4). 

3 It seems slightly doubtful whether, with Robinson, we are to place the 
cleansing of the temple on the same day as our Lord’s triumphal entry, or 
whether, with Lightfoot, Wiesele”. al., we are to refer it to the following day, 


25 


266 THE LAST PASSOVER. Lect. VIE 


excited feelings. All we read is that He entered the 
temple, and in one comprehending gaze? be- 
held all things, —all the mercenary desecra- 
tion to which the needs of the festal season had given 
fresh impulse,? and which on the morrow must solemnly 
be purged away. When all was surveyed, 
evening was now come, and with the small 
company of the Twelve our Lord returned to the quiet of 
the upland village which He had left with such a mighty 
multitude but a few hours before. 
Early on the following morning, as we learn from a 
comparison of the narratives of St. Matthew 
μος δα °F and St. Mark, our Lord set forth from Beth- 
(Monday). any, with the intention, we may humbly 
Spain presume, of reaching the temple before any 
great influx of worshippers could have been 
found in its courts. The inspection of the preceding 
day had shown only too clearly that the 
sanctity of His Father’s house must again 
be vindicated, and that the unholy and usurious’ traflic 


Mark xi. 11. 


Ver. ll. 


Ver. 11. 


The former view is most in accordance with the connection of St. Matthew’s 
narrative, and is partially supported by the notice of the children crying in the 
temple, which might seem but a continuation of what had happened on the way. 
Still, the very distinct note of time (τῇ ἐπαύριον, ch. xi. 12) supplied by St. 
Mark, coupled with his precise notice of the lateness of the hour when our Lord 
finished His survey the preceding evening (ch. xi. 11), leads us here to adopt the 
generally safe rule, in cases of disputed order, of giving the preference to the 
narrative of that Evangelist who has been moved to supply a special rather than 
a merely general note of the time when any event occurred. The hypothesis 
that the cleansing of the temple commenced on the afternoon of the Sunday, 
and was continued on the following day, is noticed, but rightly rejected, by 
Greswell, Dissert. xxx1x. Vol. iii. p. 99 sq. 

1 On the use of this peculiar term by St. Mark, see Da Costa, Four Witnesses, 
p. 122, and compare Lect. 1. p. 39, note 1. 

2See Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr. in Matt. xxi. 12, who mentions that the place 
where this traffic was carried on was called 172M (“Taberne”’), and was in the 
spacious court of the Gentiles. Compare Deser. Templ. cap. 1X. Vol. i. p. 565. 

3 See Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr. in Matt. xxi. 12, where there are some valuable 
Rabbinical citations illustrative of the κολλυβισταὶ and their practices. The 
following seems to show that the agio exacted in changing common money into 
sacred, or the shekel into two half-shekels, was great: ‘“ Quanti valoris est istud 
lucrum? Tunc temporis cum denarios persolyerent pro Hemisiclo, Kolbon [vel, 


Lxcr. VII. THE LAST PASSOVER. 267 


which was now being carried on within its walls must 
again! be purged out of the hallowed precincts. On the 
way, He, who was truly flesh of our flesh and bone of our 
bone, felt the weakness of the nature He vouchsafed to 
assume. He hungered, we are told by the μαι 48 
first two Evangelists, and turned to a way- ὠ ἬλΙαν αἱ. 15. 
side fig-tree to see if haply there was the 9 ““*"™™ 
fruit thereon of which the early show of leaves, though not 
the season of the year,’ gave such ostentatious promise. 


lucrosus reditus nummulario pensus] fuit dimidium Mee, hoc est pars duodecima 
denarii: et nunquam minus.’ — Talm. “‘Shekalim,” cap. 8. For a deseription 
of the sacred shekel, compare Friedlieb, Archdol. § 15, p. 37. 

1 The purging of the temple, mentioned by St. Jolin (ch. ii. 13 sq.), is rightly 
regarded by Chrysostom, most of the older, and nearly all the best recent expos- 
itors, as different from the present. It took place at the Passover, A.U.c. 781, or 
two years before the present time. See above, Lect. m1. p. 122. The vindication 
of the sanctity and honor of His Father’s house was thus one of our Lord’s ear- 
liest as well as one of His latest public acts. On the difficulties which some 
interpreters have felt in the performance of this authoritative act by our Lord, 
especially on the first occasion, see above, p. 122, note 8. 

2 Much difficulty has been felt at the partially parenthetical clause, Mark xi. 18, 
ὃ γὰρ καιρὸς οὐκ ἦν σύκων (Tisch.), or οὐ yap ἦν καιρὸς σύκων (Rec.). From 
this, it has been urged, we are to conclude that our Lord could not have expected 
te find figs on the tree, and consequently that the curse pronounced on it is less 
easy to be accounted for. <A close attention to the exact words of the original, 
combined with the notices of modern travellers, seems completely to remove all 
difficulty. St. Mark tells us distinctly that our Lord saw a fig-tree ἔχουσαν 
φύλλα (ver. 13), i. 6., affording the usual though in the present case extremely 
early evidence that fruit was certainly to be looked for, the latter regularly pre- 
ceding the leaves. See Thomson, The Land and the Book, Vol.i. p. 588, from 
whom we learn that in a sheltered spot figs of an early kind may occasionally be 
found ripe as soon as the beginning of April. Compare also Winer, RWB. Art. 
“« Feigenbaum,” Vol. i. p. 867, Greswell, Dissert. xx xIx. Vol. iii. Ὁ. 91. Our Lord 
approaches the tree to see εἰ ἄρα, if, as was reasonable to expect under such cir- 
cumstances (Klotz, Devar. p. 178 sq.), fruit was to be found. He finds nothing 
except leaves, —leaves, not fruit; whereas, if it had been later, and the regular 
season, He would have found fruit and not leaves, and would not have been 
attracted by the unseasonable appearance of the tree. See Meyer, Komment. wb. 
Mark. p. 134, whose general explanation of the passage is reasonable and satis- 
factory. The ordinary supposition that these were leaves of the preceding year, 
and that what our Lord expected was fruit of the same year (see Lightfoot, Hor. 
Hebr. in Matt. xxi. 19), is by no means probable, as the connection between the 
presence of leaves and absence of fruit is thus wholly lost, the curse not 
accounted for (the tree might have once had figs which others had now plucked 
off), and, lastly, the force of the clause ov yap «. τ. A. either explained away 
(‘Non stricte et solum rationem reddit, cur ficus non invenerit; sed rationem 
reddit totius actionis, cur scilicet in monte isto, ficubus abundanti, unam tantum 


268 THE LAST PASSOVER. Lecr. VII. 


Hapless tree! emblem of a still more hapless nation. The 
dews of heaven had fallen upon it, the sunlight had fos- 
tered it, the sheltering hill-side had protected it; all sea- 
sonable influences had ministered to it, and, even as it had 
been with the mercies of Jehovah to His chosen people, 
all had been utterly in vain. Nay, worse than in vain; the 
issue was a barrenness that told not merely of frustrated 
but of perverted influences; gifts from the God of nature 
received only to issue forth in unprofitable and deceptive 
produce; not in the fruit of His appointment, but in 
pretentious and unseasonable leaves. Why, then, are we 
to pause for reasons, or to seek about for any further expla- 
nation of what is at once so suggestive and so intelligible ? 
Why marvel we that, like the watered earth, “that bringeth 
not forth herbs meet for the use of man,” but 
beareth only thorns and briers, that emblem- 
atic tree was now “nigh unto cursing,” and that its end 
was to be burned ?? 
It was probably still early when our Lord reached the 
temple. Its present desecration might pos- 
the tena ni sibly not have been so great in every respect 
vcnformet thas’ a8 it had been two years before. Still it is 
clear that nearly every evil practice had been 
resumed. Buyers and sellers were there, usurious money- 
changers were there; all was well-nigh as of old. Meet 


Heb. vi. 7. 


viderit, cui folia talia,’”” — Lightfoot) or completely lost. Explanations such as 
those of Lange (Leben Jesu, Part 11. p. 821), Sepp (Leben Christi, Vol. iii. p. 219), 
and others, according to which Καιρὸς is amplified to mean “ favorable season,” 
or ‘‘ favorable locality,’’ appear wholly untenable. 

1 The above comments seem fully sufficient to meet the open or tacit objections 
against this ‘‘ destructive act, and that on a tree by the wayside, the common 
property ” (Milman, Hist. of Christianity, ch. vit. Vol. i. p. 309). Those who 
advance such objections would do well to remember the sensible remarks of 
Chrysostom: ‘* Whenever any such act takes place, either in respect of places, 
plants, or things without reason, be not over-precise in thy comments, and do 
not say, ‘ How then with justice was the fig-tree made to wither away?’.. . for it 
is the extreme of folly to make such remarks. Look rather at the miracle, and 
admire and glorify Him who wrought 1{.᾽" --- In Matt. Hom. Lxvit. Vol. vii. p. 
746. On the miracle generally, see the good comments of Hall, Contempl. 1v. 26, 
and Trench, Notes on the Miracles, p. 488. 


Lecr. VII. THE LAST PASSOVER. 269 


then was it that by authoritative acts no less than in 
inspired words it should be proclaimed in 

the face of all men that God’s house was not ἀκα τ 

for thievish gains, but for worship; not for 

Jewish buying and selling, but for the prayers of all the 
scattered children of God.2 Meet was it that, as at the 
first Passover of our Lord’s ministry, so at His last, the 
majesty of the eternal Father should be thus openly glori- 
fied by the acts of His eternal Son. And not by these 
only. Deeds of mercy followed deeds of necessity. The 
blind came to Him and received their sight ; 
the lame walked, yea, even before the un- 
believing eyes of the very chief priests and scribes who, as 
we learn from St. Mark, had heard of the 
Lord’s presence in the temple, and were now 
seeking to find an opportunity of destroying Him*® whom 
now, more than ever, they were regarding with mingled 
hatred and apprehension. At present it was in vain. The 
children round them glorifying the Son of 

David, the attentive and awe-stricken mul- nee a 
titude hanging on the words and deeds of 

Him whom they had welcomed yesterday with cries that 


Matt. xai. 14. 


Ch. xt. 18. 


1 See above, p. 266, note 3. 

2 It is worthy of notice that the words πᾶσι Tots ἔϑνεσιν, which duly express 
the spirit of the prophecy referred to, are only found in St. Mark (ch. xi. 17). 
The addition would not seem due to any greater care in St. Mark’s mode of cita- 
tion (De Wette), but as suggested by the general character of his Gospel and its 
more general destination for Gentile readers. 

8 It is perhaps scarcely safe to make definite historical deductions from finer 
shades of grammatical distinction which may not have been fully recognized by 
the writers; still the student’s attention may be called to Mark xi. 18, ἐζήτουν 
[οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ of γραμματεῖς] πῶς αὐτὸν ἀπολέσωσιν, where the tense 
adopted, ἀπολέσωσιν (Tisch., Lachm., with the four leading MSS.), or ἀπολέ- 
σουσιν (Rec. with later MSS.), will modify the view taken of the conduct of the 
members of the Sanhedrin. If we adopt the subjunctive, the meaning will sim- 
ply be “ how they should kill Him,” how they should carry out the design they 
were now entertaining; if the future,— which, however, critically considered, 
seems less probable, — the meaning will be, ‘‘ how they shal/ kill Him,” how they 
shall accomplish a design already definitely formed and agreed upon, and now 
considered only in reference to the ‘‘ modus operandi.” On this distinction, see 
Winer, Gr. § 41. a, p. 266 (ed. 6), and compare Stalbaum on Plato, Sympos. p- 


225, 
23* 


270 THE LAST PASSOVER. Leor. VI. 


their children were now reiterating, all clearly told the 
party of the Sanhedrin that their hour—the hour of the 
powers of darkness—had not yet come. 
One effort they make; reproachfully they 
ask Him if He hears, if He accepts these cries of hom- 
age, plainly implying what the Pharisees had 
openly demanded on the Mount of Olives 
the day before, that such demonstrations 
should be silenced. But neither then nor now is it meet 
that the jubilant accents, whether of loving or of innocent 
lips, should be hushed and checked. Nay, prophecy must 
have its fulfilment. With the pertinent words 
of a Psalm, of which the deeper meaning and 
application was now fully disclosed, our Lord leaves the 
temple and city and returns again to Bethany. © 

On the morrow, and, as St. Mark tells us, early in the 

Answers to the ay, our Lord and His disciples take their 
Sauiedrin’ Tus, Way to Jerusalem. Much there awaited 
et them. The day preceding had been marked 

Ges tos by manifestations of divine power, as shown 
forth in deeds and wondrous works; the present day was 
to be the witness of divine wisdom, as shown forth in 
words and discourses. It was a day that our Lord fore- 


Luke xxii. 53. 


Matt. xxi. 16, 
Luke 2ix. 39. 


Ps. viii. 2. 


1 The present feelings of these evil men are very distinctly put before us by the 
comment of St. Mark, ἐφοβοῦντο yap αὐτόν, ch. xi. 18. Formerly it was the 
hostility of a hypocrisy which saw its real principles of action exposed, and of 
a party spirit which deemed its prerogatives interfered with or disregarded. 
Now there is a positive apprehension, founded, probably, on the recent recep- 
tion of our Lord by the populace, that their own power will be soon wholly set 
aside, and that the prophet of Nazareth will become the theocratic leader of the 
nation. Even the heathen Pilate recognized the true motive of their actions; 
de yap ὅτι διὰ φϑόνον παρέδωκαν αὐτόν, Matt. xxvii. 18. The present 
behavior of the people, as Cyril of Alexandria has well observed, ought to have 
led to a very different result: ‘‘ And does not this, then, make the punishment of 
the scribes and Pharisees, and all the rulers of the Jewish ranks, more heavy, 
—that the whole people, consisting of unlearned persons, hung upon the sacred 
doctrines, and drank in the saving word as the rain, and were ready to bring 
forth also the fruits of faith, and place their neck under His commandments? 
But they whose office it was to urge on their people to this very thing savagely 
rebelled, and wickedly sought the opportunity for murder, and with unbridled 
violence ran upon the rocks, not accepting the faith, and wickedly hindering 
others also.” — Commentary on St. Luke, Serm, CXxXXII. Part 11. p. 615 (Transl.)} 


Lecr. VIL. THE LAST PASSOVER. hE 


knew would be marked by rapidly changing incidents,’ by 
every varied form of stratagem, by hypocritical question- 
ings and insidious inquiry ; it was to be a day of last and 
most solemn warnings, of deepest and most momentous 
prophecies. Early must it needs be that He go, late that 
He return. Ere they reach Jerusalem the hapless emblem 
of that city and its people meets the eyes of the disciples. 
The fig-tree, as the graphic St. Mark tells us, 
was withered from its very roots. The won- 
dering question that was called forth by such an exhibition 
of the power of their Master over the material world re- 
ceives its practical answer in the solemn reiteration of 
words first uttered by way of gentle reproof 
some months before, and now again, by way 
of instruction, declaring the omnipotence of perfect and 
unwavering faith They pass onward to the temple, 


Ch. xi. 20, 


Hatt. xvii. 20, 


1 To the present day (Tuesday) are assigned, by most of the leading harmonists, 
all the events and discourses comprised in Matt. xxi. 20—xxv. 46, Mark xi. 20— 
xiii. 37, Luke xx. 1—xxi. 88, and apparently (see below, p. 286) John xii. 20—36, 
with the recapitulatory remarks and citations of the Evangelist, ver. 37—50. We 
have thus, on this important day, the answer to the deputation from the San- 
hedrin, and the three parables which followed it; the answer to the Pharisees 
and Herodians about the tribute-money, to the Sadducees about the woman 
with seven husbands, and to the scribe about the greatest commandment; the 
question put to the Pharisees about the Messiah, and the severely reproving dis- 
course in reference to them and the scribes; the praise of the poor widow; the 
words uttered in the presence of the Greeks who sought to see our Lord, and 
the last prophecies in reference to the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of 
the world, with the accompanying parable of the Ten Virgins. See Wieseler, 
Chron. Synops. Ὁ. 893 sq.,and Greswell, Dissert. xu. Vol. iii. p. 109 sq., who, 
however, conceives the day to be Wednesday, and also differs in fixing the inci- 
* dent of the Greeks on the day of the triumphal entry. The view of Milman 
(Hist. of Christianity, Vol. i. p. 311 note), that some of the discourses, 6. g., the 
answer to the Pharisees and Herodians, and what followed, belong to a day sub- 
sequent to that on which the answer was made to the deputation from the San- 
hedrin, has very little in its favor. 

2 The addition of the verse in St. Mark (ch. xi. 25) on the duty and necessity 
of showing a forgiving spirit, especially when offering up prayer to God (comp. 
Matt. vi. 14), has been judged by Meyer and others as due to the Evangelist, and 
as not forming a part of our Lord’s present words. This seems a very uncalled- 
for assumption. The preceding declaration of the prevailing nature of the prayer 
of faith leads our Lord to add a warning, which a possible misunderstanding of 
the miracle just performed might suggest as necessary, viz., that this eflicacy of 
prayer was not to be used against others, even though they might be thought 
justly to deserve our animadversion. Compare Stier, Disc. of our Lord, Vol. iii. 


ΟΥ̓ THE LAST PASSOVER. Lect. VIL. 


where already, early as it was, many were gathered 
together to hear the teaching of life and 

ant conjure iu, those glad tidings of the Gospel which now, 
gor are as St. Luke incidentally informs us, formed 
Luke vir.48. the subject of our Lord’s addresses to His 
enti, eager and wondering hearers. But, as since, 
so then was the Gospel to some a savor of 

death unto death. The Lord’s preaching is broken in 
upon, by a formal deputation from the Sanhedrin,’ with 
two questions fair and specious in their general form, and 
yet most mischievously calculated to call forth an answer 
that might be twisted into a charge,—“ By what authority 
was He doing these things?”? and “From 
whom did He receive it?” But question 
must be met by question. Ere the Messiah declares the 
nature of His mission, He must be told in what aspects 
the mission of His forerunner was regarded. Was that 
without higher sanction, unaccredited, unauthorized, — 
from men or from heaven? Let the spiritual rulers of the 
nation answer that question, and then in turn 
shall answer be made to them. The sequel 
we well remember: the shrewdly-weighed 
alternatives, the necessary admission, “They could not 


Matt. xxi. 23. 


Ver. 25. 
Ver. 27. 


p. 105, Lange, Leben Jesu, 11. 6. 6, p. 1212. That our Lord should have uttered 
the same words on another and earlier occasion, and should now be pleased to 
repeat them, involves nothing that is either unlikely or even unusual. See Lect. 
Iv. p. 170, note 2. 

1 This seems clearly implied by St. Mark’s mention of the three component 
parts of the supreme court, ἔρχονται πρὸς αὐτὸν of ἀρχιέρεϊς Kal of γραμματεῖς 
καὶ of πρεσβύτεροι, ch. xi. 27. Compare Matt. xxi. 28, Luke xx.1. Fora good 
account of these three sections of the Sanhedrin, the first of which was com- 
posed of priests (perhaps heads of the twenty-four classes, not deposed high- 
priests), the second of expounders and transcribers of the law (see Lightfoot, 
Hor. Hebr.in Matt. ii. 4), the third of the heads of the principal families of 
Israel, see Friedlieb, Archaol. § 8, p. 15 sq. 

2In the question proposed by the deputation, Ἔν ποίᾳ ἐξουσίᾳ ταῦτα ποιεῖς 
(Mark xi. 28), the ταῦτα appears to refer, not to the present or previous teaching 
of our Lord (Bengel, comp. Chrysost.), but to the authoritative purging of the 
temple the day before (Cyril. Alex., Euthym.), and apparently also to the mira- 
cles on the blind and the lame, of which some of the speakers had been wit- 
nesses. See Matt. xxi.15. The probable design was to induce our Lard to lay 


Lect. VII. THE LAST PASSOVER. . OTS 


tell,” the consequent refusal of our Lord to give them an 
answer, and yet the mercy with which, by 
means of two parables, their conduct, both in es 
its individual and in its official aspects, is 
placed clearly before them,’ with all its issues of shame 
and condemnation. | 

The drift of the two parables, especially of the second, 
they failed not clearly to perceive. They 
knew that our Lord was speaking with ref- Os ee 
erence to them, but they heed not, nay, they “a” 
renew their efforts against Him with greater ain Sheen 
implacability, and are only restrained from 
open acts by their fear of the populace. With words of 
last and merciful warning,’ as expressed in the parable of 


1 The question proposed by our Lord had close reference to Himself, as Him of 
whom John had spoken, and that too to a similar deputation (John i. 19 sq.) to 
the present. The Sanhedrin had heard two years ago, from the mouth of the 
Baptist, an indirect answer to the very question they were now proposing; meet, 
then, was it that they should first declare the estimation in which they held him 
who had so spoken to them. 

2 In the first of the two parables, the Two Sons sent into the Vineyard, the gen- 
eral course of conduct of the Pharisaical party is put in contrast with that of 
the publicans and harlots (ver. 31), and thus more clearly shown in its true char- 
acter. By their general habits this latter class practically said οὐ SéAw to the 
divine command, but afterwards repented, at the preaching of John. The Phar- 
isaical party, on the contrary, at once said ἐγὼ κύριε with all affected readiness, 
but, as their conduct to this very hour showed clearly enough, never even 
attempted to fulfil the promise; they were the second son of the parable, the 
harlots and publicans (not the Gentiles, as Chrysost. and the principal patristic 
expositors) the first. Compare Lange, Leben Jesu, 11. 6. 6, Part 11. p. 1215, Gres- 
well, Dissert. Xu. Vol. iii. p. 113, and see De Wette and Meyer in loc. In the 
second parable, the Husbandmen who slew the Heir, the conduct of the Phar- | 
isaical party, as Stier (Disc. of our Lord, Vol. iii. p. 107) rightly observes, is set 
forth more in reference to its official characteristics, and to the position of the 
rejecting party as representatives of the nation. At the same time, also, the 
punishment that awaited them (ἐπήγαγε καὶ τὰς κολάσεις, Chrys.), which was 
only hinted at in the first parable (Matt. xxi. 21), is now expressly declared. 
See Matt. xxi. 41. On these parables generally, see Stier, 7. c., Trench, Notes on 
the Parables, p. 160 sq., 173 sq., and comp. Greswell, Parables, Vol. v. p. 1 sq. 

3 There seems no just reason for thinking, with Olshausen and others, that 
Matt. xxi. 45, 46 conclude the previous scene. The words only depict the gen- 
eral state of feeling of the adverse party, viz., that they both perceived the 
application of the parable, and were only restrained from open violence by fear 
of the multitude, and thus in fact prepare the reader for the further act of 
mercy on the part of our Lord in addressing yet another parable to these malig- 


214 _ THE LAST PASSOVER. Lect. VII. 


the Marriage of the King’s Son, they depart for a season 
to organize some plan how they may en- 
snare the Holy One in His speech; how they 
aati eri-15 may force Him or beguile Him into admis- 
sions which may afford a colorable pretext for 
giving Him up to the stern man}? thas then bore the 
swor di in Jerusalem. 
They choose fit instruments for such an attempt, — their 
own disciples, associated with Herodians; 
The question : νον 
about the duty of Ten at variance in many points,’ but united 
Cun," © in one, and ready enough now, as they had 
Ma ari 16. been once before, to combine in any attempt 
to compass the destruction of one who was 
alike hateful to both. *T' was a well-arranged combination : 
religious hypocrisy and political craft, hierarchical preju- 
dice and royalist sympathies; each party scarcely tolerat- 
ing the other except for temporary and special purposes, 
and yet both of them, for the time and the occasion, working 
harmoniously together,’® and concurring in the proposal of 
the most perplexing and dangerous question that could 


Ch. xxii. 1 sq, 


nant enemies. Comp. Chrysost. in Matt. Hom. Lxrx. init., Lange, Leben Jesu, 
11. 6. 6, Part 11. p. 1217. 

1 Such certainly seems to have been the general character of Pilate as procu- 
rator of σπάθα. See Luke xiii. 1, and compare Joseph. Antig. xvuit. 8. 1 sq., 
Bell. Jud. τι. 9. 2 5ᾳ. There are some proofs that this sternness was not always 
pushed to an extreme (see Friedlieb, Archdol. § 34, p. 122, note), but it is still 
equally clear that his general conduct towards the refractory province of which 
he was procurator was by no means marked by leniency or forbearance. The 
consideration of his conduct as a public officer forms the subject of a separate 
treatise by J. C. S. Germar, Thorun. 1785. See Winer, RWB. Art. “ Pilatus,” 
Vol. ii. p. 262. 

2 On the general characteristics of the political sect of the Herodians, see Lect. 
iv. p. 168, note 3. 

3 The temporary bond of union between the two parties was now probably a 
common fear caused by the attitude which they conceived our Lord to have 
recently assumed. The triumphal entry into Jerusalem, and the authoritative 
acts in the temple, would have been easily represented by the Pharisees, though 
happening in Judea, as boding danger to the authority of Herod when the 
Prophet should return back to his home in Galilee. To regard the Herodians as 
“soldiers of Herod” (Chrysost.), and sent only as witnesses (εἴ Tt κατὰ τοῦ Kal- 
Capos ἀποκριδείη, Euthym.), does not seem either natural or accordant with the 
expressions of the sacred narrative, which seem rather to imply that both parties 
joined in the question. See Mark xii. 14. 


Lect. VII. THE LAST PASSOVER. il Ey) 


then have been devised —the tributary relations of a 
conquered to a conquering people. Let us pause for a 
moment to consider the exact nature of the attempt, and 
the true difficulties of the question proposed.... A party 
of men, with every appearance, as the third 
Evangelist implies, of being right-minded 
and thoroughly in earnest, come, as it would seem, with a 
case of conscience,’ “ Was it meet and right to give tribute 
to Cesar, or no?” To such a question, even if proposed by 
honest men, hard would it have been to have returned a 
blameless answer at such atime and in such a place, — 
during the tumultuous passover season, and in the very 
presence of the symbols of these conflicting claims; when 
round the speakers spread the temple courts and the 
thronging worshippers of the God of Israel; when yonder 
stood the palace of the first Herod, and in front rose the 
frowning tower of Antonia.? Hard indeed would it have 
been, in such a case, to have answered honest men without 
causing offence; but plainly, as it would have seemed, im- 
possible, when those who put the question were avowed hyp- 
ocrites, of differing religious sympathies and of discordant 
political creeds. Ifthe Lord answered as they might have 
hoped and expected,’ standing as now He did in the very 


Ch. xx. 20. 


1 The question, it will be observed, was so worded as to show that it affected 
to be considered as something more than one of mere political duty or expedi- 
ency. The inquiry was not whether it was advisable to. give tribute to Cesar, 
but whether it was Jawful to do so (ἔξεστιν δοῦναι, Matt. xxii. 17, Mark xii. 14, 
Luke xx. 22); whether it was consistent with an acknowledgment of God as 
their king. The seditious enterprise of Judas of Gamala (Acts y. 37) put this 
forward as one of the principles which it pretended to vindicate, μόνον ἡγεμόνᾳ 
καὶ δεσπότην τὸν Θεὸν εἶναι, Joseph. Antig. xvi. 1. 6. Compare Lightfoot 
Hor. Hebr. in Matt. xxii. 20, Sepp, Leben Christi, v1. 17, Vol. iii. p. 256. 

2 This fortress was rebuilt by the first Herod towards the beginning of hy 
reign (Joseph. Antig. xv1ir. 4. 3), and was situated at the N. W. corner of thy 
temple enclosure, with which it was connected by an underground galler; 
(Joseph. Antig. xv. 11.7). Its situation, and the full view it commanded of thy 
outer courts, made it a convenient place for the Roman garrison, by which, whe 
Judza came under the jurisdiction of a procurator, it was regularly occupiey, 
See Winer, RWB. Art. “Tempel,” Vol. ii. p. 586; compare Friedlieb, Archicd. 
§ 28, p. 98 sq. ; 

3 “They expected,” says Chrysostom, “‘that they should catch Him whichever 
way He might answer; they hoped, however, that He would answer against 


276 ‘ THE LAST PASSOVER. Lect. VII. 


centre of Judaism, and laying claim to represent all that 
was most distinctive in its expectations —if He answered 
Nay, their most eager wish was realized; they could at 
once, with a fair show of reason and justice, deliver Him 
up to the Roman government as an advocate of sedition, 
a Galilean of avowed Galilean sympathies, one whose 
blood they knew Pilate would now as readily shed at the 
very altar, as he had shed that of His coun- 
trymen but a short time before.’ Did He, 
however, contrary to expectation, answer Yea, then He 
stood forth to the multitude as the practical opponent of 
the theocratic aspirations they so dearly cherished, and to 
the Herodians as the Jewish subject of a Jewish prince, 
who scrupled not to sanction the payment of tribute to 
heathens and to strangers. 

Such was the most artful and complex stratagem ever 
laid against the Saviour;? and yet, with what divine sim- 
plicity was it frustrated! A word lays bare the true char- 


Tuke xiii. 1. 


the Herodians.’’— In Matt. Hom. Lxx. Compare Euthym. in loc. This also, as 
Cyril of Alexandria observes, seems clearly to transpire from the words of St. 
Luke (iva ἐπιλάβωνται αὐτοῦ λόγου, ὥστε παραδοῦναι αὐτὸν τῇ ἀρχῇ καὶ τῇ 
ἐξουσίᾳ τοῦ ἡγεμόνος, ch. xx. 20), and probably suggested the insidious com- 
ment (οὐ βλέπεις εἰς πρόσωπον avdpeorwy, Matt. xxii. 16, Mark xii. 14; comp. 
Luke xx. 21) with which they accosted our Lord. ‘‘ This, too, they say, inciting 
Him not to entertain any reverence for Cesar, and not from any fear to with- 
hold an answer to the inquiry.” — Euthymius on Matt. xxii. 16. 

1 The exact time and circumstances under which the act here alluded to took 
place is not known. The way in which it was told to our Lord (παρῆσαν δέ 
TIVES ἐν αὐτῷ τῷ καιρῷ ἀπαγγέλλοντες, Luke xiii. 1) would seem to imply that 
it had happened recently, and the mention of the country to which the victims 
belonged would also seem to render it likely that it was one of those movements 
in which the Galileans were so often implicated. Compare Joseph. Vit. § 17, 
and Antig. xvi1. 9. 8. That they were actual adherents of the party which 
Judas of Gamala had formerly headed (Theophyl.) is possible, but not very 
probable. See Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr. in Luc. xiii. 1. 

2 It is not without point that Cyril of Alexandria alludes to the way in which 
they who strove to involve the innocent Saviour with the Roman government 
themselves became involved with that nation in the most tragic way. After 
quoting Psalm xxxv. 7, and showing its application in the present case, he adds: 
“For so verily they did fall; for because they delivered Jesus unto Pilate, they 
were themselves given over to destruction; and the Roman host consumed them 
with fire and sword, and burnt up all their land, and even the glorious temple 
that was among them.’ — Commentary on Luke, Sermon CxxxVv. Part I. p. 688 
(Transl.). 


Lect. VIE. THE LAST PASSOVER. QTT 


acter of the affected case of conscience and of those who 
proposed it;! a single command that the πιο νανανα 
tribute-money be brought, and a single in- vation of de 
quiry whose image it bore, —and the whole pep 
web of cunning and hypocrisy is rent in ἃ ‘wate. a2ii.20. 
moment: “All that by God’s appointment Χο 
belongs unto Cesar must be rendered unto Cesar, and all 
that be God’s unto God, and to Him alone.”? On receiv- 
ing such an answer, no marvel is it that we 

read that the very inquirers tendered to Him δε. szii. 2. 
the reluctant homage of their wonder,’ that ζιχο xx. 26. 
they were silent and went their way. 


1 It is very distinctly specified by all the three Synoptical Evangelists that our 
Lord saw into the hearts and characters of those who came with the question. 
Comp. Matt. xxii. 18, γνοὺς δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς τὴν πονηρίαν ; Mark xii. 15, εἰδὼς αὐτῶν 
τὴν ὑπόκρισιν ; Luke xx. 23, κατανοήσας δὲ αὐτῶν Thy πανουργίαν. We are 
told by St. Luke that they were ἐγκαϑέτους ὑποκρινομένους ἑαυτοὺς δικαίους 
εἶναι (ch. xx. 20); this our Lord confirms and exposes by His address as recorded 
by St. Matthew [the reading in St. Mark and St. Luke is doubtful], Τί με πειρά- 
ζετε ὑποκριταΐῖ, ch. xxii. 18. 

2 The exact force of this declaration has been somewhat differently estimated, 
in consequence of the different meanings that have been assigned to τὰ TOU 
Θεοῦ. Most of them, however, 6. g., ‘the temple tribute’ (Milman, Hist. of 
Christianity, Vol. i. p. 813), “‘the inner life’ (Lange, Leben Jesu, Part 11. 1220; 
comp. Tertull. contr. Marc. Iv. 38), etc., seem wholly inconsistent with the gen- 
eral form of the expression, and give a mere special and partial aspect to what 
was designedly inclusive and comprehensive. If, with Chrysostom (in Matt. 
Hom. Lxx. Vol. vii. p. 776), we explain the expression as simply and generally, 
τὰ τῷ Θεῷ Tap ἡμῶν ὀφειλόμενα, the meaning of the whole appears perfectly 
clear: “Give to Cesar what rightly belongs to him (οὐ γάρ ἐστι τοῦτο δοῦναι, 
ἀλλ᾽ ἀποδοῦναι, Chrys.), as to one ordained of God (Rom. xiii. 1), and to God 
all that be His —all that is due to Him as your King and your God.” Thus, then, 
far from separating what is political from what is religious, or accepting the ques- 
tion in the alternative form (δοῦναι ἢ οὔ, ἡ. e.,in point of fact, ‘‘ Cesar or God”’?) 
in which it was proposed, our Lord graciously returns an answer which shows 
that it was not a question for either yea or nay; that obedience to Cesar and 
duty to God were not things to be put in competition with each other, but to be 
united, — the latter supplying, where necessary, the true regulating and limiting 
principle of the former (see Chrys. in loc.), and the former, thus regulated and 
defined, becoming a very part of the latter,—duty to Him by whom Czsar was 
Cesar, and from whom are ‘‘ the powers that be.” For sound practical applica- 
tions of this text see Andrewes, Serm. vi. Vol. v. p. 127 (A..-C. Libr.), and a ser- 
mon by Mill, Univ. Serm. 1. Ὁ. 1 sq. 

3 This, not improbably, would have been increased by the recognition of the 
determination of their own schools (“ Ubicunque numisma regis alicujus obtinet, 
illic incole regem istum pro domino agnoscunt.’’ —Maimon. in “ Gezelah,” cap. 


24 


278 THE LAST PASSOVER. Lect. VIL. 


But if a question as to civil duties and relations has 
been thus answered and thus foiled, might 

of the Saline, not a question as to religious differences prove 
touching the Ress more successful? Was there not some hope 
in stirring a controversy that had long sepa- 

rated two important sects? Might not the Sadducee 
succeed where the Pharisee and Herodian had failed? 
The trial we know was made. On that same 

day, as St. Matthew particularly specifies, 

a party of the Sadducees,' probably acting under the 
instructions of the same supreme court, approach our 
Lord with a hypothetical case of religious difficulty, the 
woman that had seven husbands in this world — to whom 
was she to belong in that world to come in which those 
worldly and self-sufficient speakers so utterly disbe- 
lieved ?? -The question was coarsely devised and coarsely 
propounded; but the attempt to drive our Lord into some 
admissions that might compromise Him either with the 
Pharisees or with the multitude was rendered thereby all 
the more hopeful. To such a question our Lord vouchsafes 
to return no answer; but to the evil heart of unbelief 


Ch. xxii. 23. 


5), which the Lord was in part here actually propounding to them. See Light- 
foot, Hor. Hebr. in Matt. xxii. 20. 

1 These Sadducees might have been, and perhaps actually were, a portion of the 
Sanhedrin, the religious opinions of the sect being no bar to their election as 
members of the supreme court. See Acts xxiii. 6, and comp. Friedlieb, Archaol. 
§ 8, p.19. There seems no reason for supposing, with Lightfoot (ὧν Matt. xxii. 
23), that there was any connection in point of religious creed between the pres- 
ent party and the Herodians who had just gone away. Some of the Herodians 
might possibly have been Sadducees; but to draw definitely such a conclusion 
from Matt. xvi. 6, compared with Mark viii. 15, seems certainly precarious, espe- 
cially when we remember that Herod can hardly be conceived himself to have 
had much in common with the peculiar tenets of the Sadducees. See Matt. 
xiv. 2. 

2 See Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr. in Matt. xii. 32. The statement of the Sadducee 
was, “ Deficit nubes, atque abit; sic descendens in sepulchrum non redit.”’— 
Tanchum, fol. 3.1, cited by Lightfoot on Matt. xxii. 23. They appeared to have 
believed that the soul perished with the body (Σαδδυκαίοις τὰς ψυχὰς 6 λόγος 
συναφανίζει τοῖς σώμασι, Joseph. Antig. xvii. 1. 4), and thus, as a matter of 
course, denied the doctrine of the resurrection, and of future rewards and pun- 
ishments. Compare Joseph. Bell. Jud. τι. 8.14. On the origin and peculiarities 
of this sect, see Lightfoot, in Matt. iii. 7, Jost, Gesch. des Judenth. 11. 2. 8, Vol. 
i, p. 215, and a good article by Winer, RWB. Vol. ii. p. 352. 


ee 
Lecr. VII. THE LAST PASSOVER. 279 


from which it came He speaks out clearly and plainly. 
With all their affected wisdom and philosophic calm He 
tells them they do err, and that they know 
not either the Scriptures, which clearly teach 
the doctrine of the future state that they so 
confidently denied, or the power of God, which shall make 
man the equal of angels and the inheritor of incorruption.! 
So clear was the vindication of God’s truth, so weighty 
the censure, so final the answer, that we can scarcely 
wonder that the impressible multitudes were 
stricken with amazement, and that some even 
of the number of our Lord’s opponents could not forbear 
declaring that He had “well spoken,” that 
the discomfiture of the impugners of the 
future state was complete and overwhelming.” 

One at least of that number was so struck by the divine 


Matt. xxii. 29. 
Mark xii, 24. 


Natt. xxii. 33. 


Luke xx. 39. 


1 Our Lord does not notice the mere question of the Sadducees, but the erro- 

neous belief that suggested it (ov πρὸς τὰ ῥήματα ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὴν γνώμην ἱστά- 
μενοβ, Chrysost.); this He shows was due to their ignorance of two things: (1) 
the Scriptures, (2) the power of God. Their ignorance of the latter is shown 
first (Matt. xxii. 80, Mark xii. 25, Luke xx. 35, 36) by a declaration of the char- 
acteristics of the life after death, and the change of the natural body into a 
spiritual body (1 Cor. xv. 44; comp. Phil. iii. 21); the ignorance of the former 
by a declaration of the doctrine really contained in the Scriptures, and more 
especially in one of the books (Exod. iii. 6) of that very portion (the Pentateuch) 
that contained the passage on which they had based their question: ἐπειδήπερ 
ἐκεῖνοι τὸν Μωῦσέα προεβάλοντο λοιπὸν καὶ αὐτὸς ἀπὸ τῆς Μωσαϊκῆς γραφῆς 
τούτους ἐπιστομίζει. Euthymius, in Matt. xxii. 31, closely following Chrysost. 
τ in loc., Vol. vii. p. 778 (ed. Bened.). 
2 Τὸ has been commonly alleged, both by ancient (Origen, contr. Cels. 1. 49, 
expressly; compare also Tertull. Prescr. Her. cap. 45) and modern writers, 
that the Sadducees only acknowledged the authority of the Pentateuch, and 
that, in consequence, our Lord specially appealed to that portion of Scripture. 
This, however, is now, as it would seem, rightly called in question, there being 
no confirmation of such an opinion in the notices of the sect supplied by Jose- 
phus.(compare Antig. x111. 10. 6, xviit. 1. 4, Bell. Jud. 11. 8), and a reasonable 
probability that the Sadducees could not have had the share in the civil and 
religious government of the nation, which it can be proved they had, if they 
openly differed from the rest of their countrymen on a point of such funda- 
mental importance as the canon of Scripture. The correct statement appears 
to be, that they rejected all tradition, and received only the written law; and 
that this special adherence to the latter, though merely in contradistinction to 
the former, gave rise to the opinion that this was the only part of Scripture that 
they accepted as canonical. See esp. Joseph. Antig. x11. 10. 6, and Winer, 
RWB. Art. “ Sadduciaer,” Vol. ii. p. 858. 


280 THE LAST PASSOVER. Lect. VIL. 


wisdom of our Lord’s last answer, that though, as it 
would seem from the narrative of St. Mat- 


the a, tucson °F thew, he came forward with the hope of 
e lawyer about 


the greatest com-  yetrieving the honor of the sect to which we 
Ch. xxii.95, . Know that he belonged,’ the partisan seems 
to have been merged in the interested in- 

quirer; party spirit seems to have given way to a genuine 
desire to learn from the wise Teacher His opinion on one, 
perhaps, of the questions of the time,” — the relative great- 
ness and precedence of the leading commandments of 
the law. At the same time the question was one that 
would not be disapproved of by the adherents of the party 
to which the inquirer belonged, as involving probably more 
than one answer which might seriously compromise our 
Lord with some of the Rabbinical schools of the day.? In 


1 According to St. Matthew (ch. xxii. 35 sq.) the lawyer forms one of a party 
of Pharisees who were collected together after the defeat of the Sadducees, and 
comes forward with a trying and probably insidious question (πειράζων αὐτόν); 
according to St. Mark (ch. xii. 28 sq.), he puts the question after observing how 
well our Lord had answered. The slight apparent difference between these 
accounts admits of this natural explanation, that the man was put forward by 
his party for the purpose of ensnaring our Lord, and that he acquiesced, but 
that he was also really inspired by a sincere desire to hear the opinion of one 
whose wisdom he respected. St. Matthew exhibits him in the former light, and 
in reference to his party; St. Mark in the latter, and as an individual. Compare 
Lange, Leben Jesu, 11. 6. 6, Part 11. p. 1232. The reconciliation adopted by 
Euthymius (see Chrysostom), that the designs of the man at first were bad, but 
were changed by our Lord’s answer, seems scarcely so natural. 

2 Somewhat similar questions are noticed by Schoettgen, in Matt. xxii. 36, and ἢ 
by Wetstein in his notes on ch. v.19 and xxiii. 23. According to Lightfoot (in 
Marc. xii. 28), the inquiry turned upon the importance of the ceremonial as 
compared with the moral law; this, however, seems less probable. 

3 It is not easy to specify in what particular way the question was calculated 
to ensnare our Lord; though, from the nature of the controversies and casuistry 
of the day, it is not difficult to imagine that there were known differences of 
opinion on the subject, in which it might have been thought our Lord could not 
escape becoming involved. It is worthy of notice that, on an earlier occasion, 
when our Lord puts an inquiry to a lawyer who had a similar but stronger 
design against Him (ἀνέστη ἐκπειράζων αὐτόν, Luke x. 25), “ What is 
written in the law? ” (comp. Matt. xxii. 86, ποία ἐντολὴ μεγάλη ἐν τῷ νόμῳ), 
the answer was promptly given, in terms but little different to the present, and 
was approved of by our Lord (Luke x. 28). The present question, then, might 
have been intended to lead Him to give the prominence to some single com- 
mand; the answer given, however, was one which our Lord had commended as 
an answer to a more general question, and which involved the substance of no 


Lecr. VII. THE LAST PASSOVER. 281 


the inquirer’s concluding comment, his better feelings still 
more clearly prevail; a sort of consciousness of the idle 
nature of all that casuistry and formality of which his 
own question was the exponent breaks out in words, and 
obtains for him, from the Redeemer’s lips, the gracious 
declaration, that “he was not far from the 

kingdom of God.” 

And was this the last attempt to ensnare our Lord 
which was made on this eventful day? S0 ay, χωρίον ret- 
indeed it would seem from the tenor of the ative eee 
present portion of the inspired narrative. 
But are we not in some degree justified in again? ad- 
vancing the conjecture that the incident of the woman 
taken in adultery belongs to the history of the present 
day? Such a view, it may be remembered, has the 
support of some slight amount of external evidence, in 
addition to the very strong internal arguments on which 
it principally rests.2 What, save the deeply-laid stratagem 
of the tribute-money, could have seemed more hopeful 
than the proposal of a case for decision which must appar- 
ently have involved our Lord either with the Roman — 


Mark xii. 84. 


single command, but of all. The opinion of Chrysostom and others, that it was 
to tempt our Lord to say something about his own Godhead, is apparently not 
very probable. 

1 We cannot say, with Milman, that the lawyer “did not hesitate openly to 
espouse our Lord’s doctrines,” and that the Pharisees ‘‘ were paralyzed by this 
desertion ” (Hist. of Christianity, Vol. i. p. 815), as there is nothing in the sacred 
text to substantiate such an inference. The declaration that ‘he was not far 
from the kingdom of God” gives hope that he was afterwards admitted into it; 
but, as Chrysostom correctly observes, δείκνυσιν ἔτι ἐπέχοντα ἵνα (ζητήσῃ τὸ 
λεῖπον. --- In Matt. Hom. Lxxt. 

2 See above, Lect. vi. p. 282. 

8 The external evidence is specified above, p. 232, note 2. The internal argu- 
ments are, on the negative side, (a) the striking dissimilarity of the language 
from that of St. John, especially in the particles, (b) the forced nature of the 
connection with the close of John vii. (see Luthardt, Johann. Evang. Part 11. p. 
39), and (c) the total want of union with what follows; and on the positive side, 
(d) the similarity in language to that of the Synoptical Gospels (compare Meyer 
on John viii. 1—8), especially of St. Luke, and, lastly, (e) the striking similarity 
between the attempt and those recorded as having been made on the day we are 
now considering. Compare Lange, Leben Jesu, 11. 6. 6, Part 11. p. 1222, and the 
introductory critical comments of Meyer, Kommentar, Ὁ. 247 sq. (ed. 9). 


24* 


282 THE LAST PASSOVER. Lect. VIL. 


governor or the Sanhedrin? Did He decide, as they seem 
to have hoped, in favor of carrying out the Mosaic law,' 
then He was at once committed to antagonism not only 
with Roman customs, but with the exclusive power which 
Rome seems to have reserved to herself in all capital 
cases.” Did He decide in favor of mercy to the sinner, 
then He stood forth, both before the Sanhedrin and the 
populace, as a daring innovator, that publicly sanctioned 
the abrogation of a decree of the Mosaic law. But, as in 
all the preceding cases, the same heavenly wisdom displays 
itself in the answer that was vouchsafed. The law of 
Moses was tacitly maintained, but its execution limited 
to those who were free from all such sins of uncleanness?® 


1 Some little difficulty has been felt in the mention of “ stoning” (ver. 4), as 
the general punishment of death was decreed against those convicted of adul- 
tery (Ley. xx. 20, Deut. xxii. 22), the special punishment of stoning being appar- 
ently reserved for the case of unfaithfulness in one betrothed (Deut. xxii. 28, 24). 
It is not improbable that the woman in the present case might have been one of 
the latter class (Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr. in Joann. v. 5), especially as the Rabbin- 
ical law seems to have specified that the adulteress was to be strangled (see 
Lightfoot, in Joc.); still, as this last point does not appear certain (see Ewald, 
Alterth. pp. 218, 282, and comp. Michael. Mos. Recht. § 262), and as ‘‘ stoning” is 
mentioned in the Law, and in close connection with adultery, it is perhaps more 
probable that such was generally regarded as the prescribed mode of death, and 
that this was a case of μοιχεία in the ordinary acceptation of the word. 

2 This question has been much debated. The most reasonable view appears to 
be, that though, in hurried cases like that of St. Stephen’s martyrdom, the pun- 
ishment of death might have been tumultuously inflicted, still that the declara- 
tion of the party of the Sanhedrin, that “it was not lawful for them to put any 
one to death” (John xviii. 31), was strictly true, and that the supreme court lost 
the power of formally carrying out their sentence, even in religious cases, prob- 
ably about the time that Judza became attached to Syria, and placed under a 
Roman procurator. See Friedlieb, Archdol. § 28, p. 96 sq.,and Winer, RWB. 
Art. “Synedr.” Vol. ii. p. 553. The statements of the Talmudical writers, that 
the loss of this power was really owing to the Sanhedrin ceasing to sit in the 
room or hall called ‘‘ Gazith” (see Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr. in Joann. xviii. 31, and 
compare Selden, de Synedr. 11. 15), is now justly considered an evasion to cover 
the true state of the case, viz., that they had been deprived of it by the Romans. 
See Friedlieb, § 10, p. 22 sq. 

3 The context and circumstances of the case seem to suggest that the term 
ἀναμάρτητος (an ἅπαξ λεγόμ. in the N. 1.) is not here to be understood in refer- 
ence to sin generally (Luthardt, Johann. Evang. Part 11. p. 96), but in reference 
to the class of sins of which the case in question was an instance, ὃ. e., sins of the 
flesh. Compare μηκέτι ἁμάρτανε, ver. 11, and the limited meaning of ἅμαρτω- 
Ads, Luke vii. 87. It may be remarked that, according to the text of the Codex 
Beza, the woman is actually described as ἐπὶ ἅ μα ρτίᾳ γυναῖκα εἰλημμένην 
{ver. 3) 


Lect. VIL. THE LAST PASSOVER. 283 


as those of the guilty woman who stood before them. No 
wonder is it that we read that they went out one by one, 
convicted by their consciences, and left the 
sinner standing in the midst, in the solitary 
presence of her sinless yet merciful Judge. If this be the 
true position of the narrative, our blessed Lord would now 
have been subjected to the most trying questions that the 
subtlety of man could excogitate,—the first relative to 
the authority of His public acts, the second of a political 
nature, the third relating to doctrine, the fourth to specu- 
lative teaching, the last-mentioned to discipline.’ 

And now all those malicious attempts had been openly 
and triumphantly frustrated; so triumph- 
antly, that all the three Synoptical Evan- tion resecting the 
gelists tell us that no man henceforth had “αν καὶ 
the hardihood to propose any further ques-  Harbau ts 
tion. One final display of meek victory 
alone was wanting, and that must be seen in the interro- 
gated now assuming the character of the interrogator, and 
receiving only the answer of shamed silence. The last 
question mentioned in the narratives of St. Matthew and 
St. Mark had been proposed by a scribe, and to them and 
to the Pharisees with whom he was united,? and to whose 
sect he probably belonged, does our Lord now turn with 
the inquiry, how, when according to the teaching of the 


John viii. 9. 


1 The position in which this attempt stands with reference to the others cannot 
of course be determined. The cursive manuscripts (see above, p. 292, note 3) 
which place it after Luke xxi. 88 probably only intended to imply that the inci- 
dent was judged to belong to the portion of the Gospel which immediately pre- 
ceded, not that it formed the last of the attempts in historical order. Of mere 
conjectures, the most probable seems that which places it after the question 
about the tribute-money. Compare Lange, Leben Jesu, τι. 6. 6, Part τι. p. 1222. 

2 According to St. Matthew the question was proposed to the Pharisees (ch. 
xxii. 41); according to St. Luke, who omits the question about the chief com- 
mandment, to [not concerning, Grot., Alford on Matt. xxii. 41] the scribes (ch. 
xx. 89); according to St. Mark, it was uttered in the hearing of the people (ch. 
xii. 86, 37), and as a sort of answer (ver. 35) to the silence of the opponents. All 
these accounts admit of the obvious explanation, that the question of our Lord 
was proposed openly, and to those who had last questioned Him, viz., Pharisees 
in regard to their sect, but several of whom were scribes and lawyers by pro*ge 
sion. Compare Luke xx. 39 with Mark xii. 28. 


284 THE LAST PASSOVER. Lect. VII. 


scribes Christ is the Son of David, David, while speaking 
under the influence of the Spirit, nevertheless calls Him 

Lord. How can He be both His Lord and 

His Son?! To that profound question, so 
clearly pointing to the mystery of the divine and human 
natures of Him who stood before them,? no answer is even 
attempted. By silence they acknowledge 
their defeat; and in silence they now receive 
that warning though merciful chastisement of their meek 
victor recorded to us by the first Evangelist, which forms 
the subject of the whole of the 23d chapter of his Gospel. 
There our Lord, with a just severity, lays bare the prac- 
tices of scribe and Pharisee, concluding with 
an apostrophe to Jerusalem, which it would 
seem had been uttered on an earlier occa- 
sion,’ but was now appropriately repeated, as declaring, in 


Psalm cx. 1. 


Matt. αατὶ. 46. 


Ver. 13 sq. 
Ver. 37 sq. 


1It has been popularly urged by modern expositors that the psalm was not 
written by David but to David (Ewald, Meyer, al.), and that our Lord conformed 
His language to the generally received views of the time (De Wette). This latter 
assumption, though a very favorite one in our popular theology, is always very 
precarious, if no worse. In the present case it is even out of place, as there are 
strong reasons for believing, from a fair critical consideration of the psalm in 
question, that it was written by David, as is here expressly declared. Compare 
Hengstenberg, Comment. on Psalms, Vo). iii. p. 316 sq. (Clark), Phillips, 7b., Vol. 
ii. p. 416, and on the Messianic character of the psalm and its reference to 2 Sam. 
vii. 1 sq., 1 Chron. xvii. 1 sq., see Ebrard, Kritik der Evang. Gesch. § 100, p. 490. 

2 As Euthymius briefly but clearly expresses it,— ‘‘ He is said to be his Son, as 
having sprung from his root, according to His human generation; but his Lord, 
as being his God.’ — In Matt. xxii. 45, Vol. i. p. 869. 

3 An address scarcely differing from the present except in the particle that 
connects the last verse with what precedes (ydp, Matt. xxiii. 39; δέ, Luke xiii. 
85) is specified by St. Luke as having been uttered by our Lord after receiving 
the message about Herod’s designs as communicated by the Pharisees. See 
above, Lect. vi. p. 242. There does not seem any reason either for agreeing 
with Meyer (on Luke xiii. 34), who asserts that the original and proper position 
of the words is that assigned by St. Matthew, or with Wieseler (Chron. Synops. 
p. 822; compare Credner, Hinleit. p. 67, 186), who regards the words in their 
present position as interpolated from St. Luke. As we have elsewhere, and as 
it would seem justly, urged the probability of a repetition of the same words on 
different occasions, when called forth by something similar, so in the present 
instance does it seem reasonable to suppose that the similarity of the subject 
which in both cases precedes the words (the slaughter of the righteous in Jeru- 
salem), called forth in both the pathetic address to the bloodthirsty and now 
forlorn city. Compare Lect. Iv. p. 170, note 2, p. 181, note 1. 


Lect. VII. THE LAST PASSOVER. 285 


language of the deepest pathos, that desolation was nigh 
at hand, that the hour of mercy had at length 
passed away, and that justice, temporal and 
eternal, must now be the portion of the city that had 
poured out the blood of Jehovah’s prophets, and was 
thirsting for the blood of His Son." 

The scene changes with a marvellous truthfulness and 
appropriateness. After our Lord had uttered 
His last words of solemn denunciation against ton bitte. Ἢ 
the scribes and Pharisees, —the consumers καὶ κι αν 
of widows’ houses, the rapacious, the hypocrit- 
ical, and the bloodthirsty, — He turns His steps toward the 
place where tree gifts and contributions for the various 
ministrations of the temple were offered by the worship- 
pers, and sits there marking the varied and variously 
minded multitude that was now clustering round the 
numerous chests2 There He beholds one of those hapless 
ones of whom Me had but so lately spoken as the victim 
of the extortionate scribe, in her penury cast- 
ing in her two wites, her all.’ And she 
departed not unklest. That act caused the Redeemer of 


er. 38 


Mark xii, 42. 


1 The concluding words ot μή pe ἴδετε κ. τ. A. (Matt. xxiii. 89) had reference, 
on the former occasion that they were uttered, primarily to the triumphal entry, 
and secondarily to the sccond advent (see above, p. 241, note 2); in the present 

- the reference is exclusively to the latter. ‘‘Then,’? as Euthymius well remarks, 
‘‘ will they say this— willingly, never, but unwillingly, at the time of His sec- 
ond advent, when He shall come with power and great glory, and when their 
recognition shall be of no avail.” — In Matt. xxiii. 39. 

2 These, we learn from Lightfoot (Deeas Chorogr.in Mare. cap. 8, § 4), were 
thirteen in number, called by the Talmudical writers 71751 (from the trumpet- 
like shape of the openings into which the money was dropped, —“ angustz 
supra late infra propter deceptores *» —Gemara on Mishna, ‘‘ Shekalim,” 11. 1), 
and stood in the court of the women. See Reland, Antig. 1.8.14, and comp 
Winer, RWB. Art. ‘Tempel,’ Vol. ii. p. 583. 

38 As Lightfoot pertinently says, ‘‘ Hec paupercula duobus minutis eternam 
sibi famam coemit.” — In Marc. xii. 42. The grounds of the divine commenda- 
tion are distinctly specified, —she gave all. She might have given one of the two 
λεπτά [the Rabbinical citation in Schoettgen, in loc. and Sepp, Leben Chr. Vol. 
iii. p. 311, does not seem to refer to contributions like the present], but she gives 
both: ** The woman offered two farthings; but she possessed nothing more than 
what she offered; she had nothing left; with empty hand, but a hand bountiful 
of the little she possessed, she went away from the treasury.” = Cyril Alex. Com- 
ment. on St. Luke, Sermon CXxXxXVIIl. Part i. p. 647. 


286 THE LAST PASSOVER. Lect. VIL. 


the world to call up to Him His disciples, and to declare 
to them that the poor desolate one had cast 


Luke xxi. 2. in more than all; yea, and one at least of 
Mark xii. 43. : . 

Ver. 44. the hearers did so bear witness that, by the 
St. Petcr ; . : - ° 
noes Yecord of two Evangelists, the widow’s gift, 


like the piety of Mary of Bethany, shall be 
known and remembered wheresoever the Gospel shall be 
preached unto men. 
While, as it would seem, our Lord was still teaching 
within,’ a strange message is brought from 
Grek echnn the court without. Some Greek proselytes 
of the gate, who had come up to Jerusalem 
to worship the God of the Jew and the Gentile at the 
feast of the Passover, prefer, by the mouths 
of the apostles Andrew and Philip, a request 
to see Him of whom every tongue in Jerusa- 
lem now was speaking, and towards whom perchance deep- 
seated presentiment had mysteriously attracted these God- 
fearing Gentiles? Deeply moved by a request which He 


John xii. 20. 
Ver. 21. 


1 The suggestion of Greswell (Dissert. xu. Vol. iii. p. 128, note), that our Lord 
sat and taught in the court of the women, in order ‘‘that the female Israelites 
might have access to Him, as well as the male,” is not without probability. It 
must be remembered, however, that the court of the women (γυναικωνῖτι5, 
Joseph. Bell. Jud. v1. 9.2) was so called, not because it was especially designed 
for their use, but because it was the furthest court into which they were per- 
mitted to enter. See Lightfoot, Decas Chorogr. in Marc. cap. 3, § 5. The 
incident that follows is also assigned by Greswell to the day of our Lord’s 
triumphal entry; the words kal ἀπελϑὼν ἐκρύβη am αὐτῶν (ch. xii. 86) seem, 
however, much more in favor of its present position. Compare Wieseler, Chron. 
Synops. Ὁ. 3896. 

2 The Ἕλληνες here mentioned by St. John are rightly considered by the 
majority of modern expositors not to have been, on the one hand, purely hea- 
thens (Chrys., Euthym.), nor again, on the other, Hellenists (Ewald, Gesch. Chr. 
p. 892), but, in accordance with the usual meaning of the word in the N. T., 
Greeks, whom, however, the clause ἀναβαινόντων kK. τ. A. (observe the pres. 
part.) seems further to specify as habitual worshippers, and so, probably, as is 
stated in the text, ‘‘proselytes of the gate,” many of whom attended the great 
feasts. See Acts viii. 27, Joseph. Bell. Jud. vi. 9. 8, and compare Lightfoot, Hor, 
Hebr.in Joann. xii. 20. The reason why they peculiarly addressed themselves 
to the Apostle Philip can only be a matter of conjecture. It has been supposed 
that they may have come from Galilee (De Wette, Meyer), and from the neigh- 
borhood of Bethsaida, to which place it is here again (see John i. 45) specially 
noticed that the apostle originally belonged. It is, however, perhaps, equally 


Lecr. VII. THE LAST PASSOVER. θ΄ 287 


felt to be yet another token of His own approaching glori- 
fication, and of the declaration of His name to the wide 
heathen world of which these were the earliest fruits, our 
Lord, as it would seem, accedes to the wish! In their 
hearing and in that of the people around He reveals, by 
means of a similitude appropriately taken 
from the teaching of nature, that truth which 
it was so hard for the Greek mind with its deifying love 
of the living and the beautiful to conceive or to realize — 
that unto man the pathway to true life lay through the 
dreaded gates of death and decay. And if to man, so also, 
by the mystery of redeeming love, in a certain measure, to 
the Son of Man Himself, — a thought which so moved the 
depths of the Saviour’s soul,? and called forth from His 


Ver, 24, 


probable that they were complete strangers, but attracted to Philip by his Gre- 
cized name. The conduct of the apostle on the present occasion, and his appli- 
cation to Andrew (‘‘cum sodali audet,’”?— Beng.), has been rightly judged to 
indicate a cautious, wise, and circumspect nature. Compare Luthardt, Johan. 
Evang. Part τ. p. 102. 

1 This has been considered doubtful. It is, however, reasonable to suppose 
that such a request, thus sanctioned by two apostles, would not be refused by 
our Lord, especially as the character of the applicants (ἀναβαινόντων iva mpoo- 
κυνήσουσιν ἐν τῇ EopTH, ver. 20) seems to show that it did not result from mere 
curiosity. The first portion of our Lord’s reply (ver. 23) may have been ad- 
dressed only to the two apostles on the way to the outer court, the rest uttered 
in the hearing of the Greeks and the multitude (ver. 29). On the whole incident, 
see Lange, Leben Jesu, 11. 6. 5, Part 11. p. 1200 sq. 

2 It is worthy of notice that, as in the more awful scene in Gethsemane (Matt. 
xxvi. 38, Mark xiv. 34), the Evangelist has been specially moved to record that 
the soul of the Saviour —that human Ψυχὴ of which the earlier Apollinarians 
seem at first even to have denied the existence (Pearson, Creed, Vol. ii. p. 205, 
ed. Burton) — was moved and troubled (ver. 27). On the scriptural meaning of 
the term, and its prevailing reference to the feelings and affections, rather than 
to the thoughts or imaginations, see Olshausen, Opuscula, p. 153 sq., and comp. 
notes on 1 Tim. iii. 16, and Destiny of the Creature, Serm. Vv. p. 99. It is perhaps 
scarcely necessary to add that the present troubled state of the Saviour’s soul is 
not for a moment to be referred to the mere apprehension of physical death 
(compare Liicke in Joc.), still less of the wrath of the devil (Lightfoot, in Joann. 
xii. 28), but to the profound consciousness of the close connection of death with 
sin. In dying for us, the sinless Saviour vouchsafed to bow to a dispensation 
which was the wages of sin (Rom. vi. 23); and it was the contemplation of such 
a contact on the part of the all-Pure and all-Holy with everything that was most 
alien to the divine nature,—sin, darkness, and death,—that called forth the 
Saviour’s present words (ver. 27), that heightened the agonies of Gethsemane, 
and found its deepest utterance in that cry of unimaginable suffering (Matt. 
XXvii. 46, Mark xy. 34) which was heard from Golgotha, when all that was con- 


88. THE LAST PASSOVER. Lect. VII. 


divine lips such words of self-devotion and prayer, that 

! now again, in the court of the Gentiles, as 

Me a. once by the banks of the Jordan and on the 

Zule Μουπύ of the Transfiguration, the answer 

of Paternal love was vouchsafed, for the sake 

of those who stood around, in audible accents of accept- 
ance and promise. 

And now the day was far spent, and our Lord prepares 

to leave His Father’s house, and for a short 

ris playset a space to conceal Himself both from His ene- 


ond thelast prevk- mies and from the thronging multitudes that 
Laan hung on His words and beheld His miracles, 


and yet did not and could not fully believe. 
While leaving the temple, a few words from one of the 
disciples, suggested, perhaps, by a remem- 


Mark xiii.1. — Hrance of an expression? in our Lord’s recent 
Ver. 2 apostrophe to Jerusalem, call forth from Him 
Matt. xxiv. 2. : : 

IE a declaration of the terrible future that 


awaited all the grandeur and magnificence of 
the sumptuous structure from which He was now taking 


templated was approaching its appalling realization. See Luthardt, das Johann. 
Evang. Part τι. p. 252, and comp. Pearson, On the Creed, Vol. i. p. 234 (Burton), 
Jackson, Comment. on the Creed, vi1t. 14, Vol. vii. p. 502 sq. 

1 All the best commentators now admit, what indeed there never ought to have 
been any doubt of, the real and objective nature of the voice from heaven. It 
may be observed that those who heard appear to be divisible into three classes: 
(1) the more dull-hearted, who heard the sownd, recognized from whence it came, 
but mistook it for thunder; (2) the more susceptible hearers, who perceived it to 
be a voice, and imagined it to be angelical, but were unable to distinguish what 
was uttered; (8) the smaller circle, of which the apostle who relates the occur- 
rence was one, who both heard the voice, knew whence it came, and were ena- 
bled to understand the words that were spoken. See the note of Meyer, én loc. 
p. 861 (ed. 8), and the brief but good comment of Chrysostom, in Joann. Hom. 
LXvVil. Vol. viii. p. 461 (ed. Bened. 2), who has noticed the first and second 
classes of hearers. 

2 The opinion of Chrysostom, Theophylact, and others, that the disciples were 
led to call our Lord’s attention to the solidity of structure (Mark xiii. 1) and 
general magnificence (Luke xxi. 5) of the temple from a remembrance of His 
recent declaration, ἰδοῦ ἀφίεται ὑμῖν ὃ οἶκος ὑμῶν ἔρημος (Matt. xxiii. 38), seems 
highly probable. A declaration of speedy and all but present desolation (ἀφίε- 
Tat), when all around was so grand and so stable, appeared to them wholly 
inexplicable. On the nature of the buildings, see Joseph. Antiqg. xv. 11.5, Bell. 
Jud. ν. 5. 6, aud comp. Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr. in Matt. xxiv. 1. 


Lect. VIL. THE LAST PASSOVER. 289 


His final departure. Such boding words called for yet 
fuller explanation. On their homeward journey, as the 
Lord was sitting on the Mount of Olives, to 
contemplate perchance yet again the doomed 
city and temple of which the desolation had 
even now begun, four of His apostles, Peter, and James, 
and John, and Andrew, come to Him with 

the solemn inquiry when this mournful 

prophecy was to be fulfilled, and when the end of this 
earthly state of things, which they could not but connect 
with the end of the theocracy, was to be looked for by the 
children of men. Ina manner strikinglyand |, 
appropriately similar to that in which the — sarkaiii.+. 
question was proposed does our Lord return Ὁ 
His answer. In a prophecy, in which at first the fate of 
the Holy City and the end of the world are we 
mysteriously blended,* but which gradually, — ch.azv.14; seep. 
by means of the solemn parables of the page ge 4 
Ten Virgins and the Talents, and the revelation that 


Matt. xxiv. 3. 
Mark xiii. 3. 


Mark xii. 3. 


1 According to St. Matthew, the question was proposed by the μαϑηταὶ gener- 
ally, —a statement which, when coupled with the further remark of both Evan- 
gelists, that it was proposed privately (Matt. xxiv. 3, Mark xiii. 3), admits of 
the easy and obvious explanation, that none except the chosen twelve were 
present when the question was proposed, and that the four apostles mentioned 
by St. Mark acted as spokesmen for the rest. A good description of the scene 
and its accessories will be found in Milman, Hist. of Christianity, Vol. i. p. 
817 sq. 

2 kt has been correctly observed (compare Lange, Leben Jesu, Part 11. p. 1257, 
note) that the two questions proposed to our Lord ought not to be separated too 
sharply, or regarded as definitely referring to separate and distinct periods, but 
only as referring generally to the period when the destruction recently foretold 
by our Lord was actually to take place; with this event they instinctively con- 
nect the advent of the Messiah (compare Matt. xxiv. 3 with Mark xiii. 4 and 
Luke xxi. 7), and of this they not unnaturally ask for the prevenient sign. The 
connection of these two events in the mind of the apostles was not improbably 
due to a share in the ‘‘sententia apud gentem receptissima de "U7 ‘ban, 
Doloribus Messie [compare Hos. xiii. 13], id est, de calamitatibus, quas expecta- 
runt futuras ad adventum Messiz.’’— Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr. in Mare. xiii. 9. 
Compare also Schoettgen, Joc. cit. Vol. ii. p. 550. 

3 The limits and general character of these notes preclude any regular discus- 
sion of this solemn and difficult prophecy. It may be remarked, however, (a) 
that it appears exegetically correct, with the majority of modern expositors, to 
recognize a change of subject at Matt. xxiv. 29 (not, with Chrys., at ver. 23), so 
that what has preceded is to be referred mainly, but not exclusively, to the 


2 


290 THE LAST PASSOVER. Lect. VEL 


follows, unfolds itself into a distinct declaration of the 
circumstances of the Last Judgment, the Saviour of the 
world vouchsafes an explicit answer to the questions of 
His amazed hearers; yea, too, and on the slopes of that 
very mountain where mysterious prophecy’ seems to indi- 
cate that He who then spake as our Redeemer will here- 
after appear as our King and our Judge. 
The day that followed was spent in that holy retirement 
into which, as it would seem from St. John, 
the Sua ang our Lord now solemnly withdrew, and ap- 
(Walnatay “* pears only to have been marked by two 
events, first the formal and deliberate consul- 
tation of the Sanhedrin how they might best 
carry out their designs, and secondly their compact with 
the traitor Judas, who perhaps might have 
availed himself of this very retirement of 
our Lord for seeking out the chief priests, 
and for bringing the designs of his now satanically 
possessed heart to their awful and impious completion. 
On the next day, and, as we may perhaps with some 
reason be led to think, so near its close? as to be really on 


Matt. xxvi. 8. 


Luke xxii. 8. 


destruction of Jerusalem; what follows, mainly but not exclusively (see below) 
to our Lord’s seéond advent and the final judgment; (Ὁ) that the difficult word 
εὐϑέως (ὁμοῦ yap σχεδὸν ἅπαντα γίνεται, Chrys.) is to be explained by the 
apparent fact that towards the close of the former part of the prophecy the 
description of the events connected with the fall of Jerusalem becomes identical 
with, and gradually (ver. 27, 28) passes into, that of the end of the world; (ec) 
that the appended parable (ver. 32 sq.) refers to both events, the πάντα ταῦτα 
(ver. 84) belonging exclusively to the events preceding the fall of Jerusalem, and 
standing in clear contrast to the ἡμέρα ἐκ εἶν ἡ (ver. 36) which obviously refers 
exclusively to the end of the world. For more special explanations the student 
may be referred to the excellent comments of Chrysostom, i Matt. Hom. 
LXXV.—LXXVII., Stier, Disc. of Our Lord, Vol. iii. p. 244 sq. (Clark), Lange, 
Leben Jesu, 11. 6. 7, Part τι. p. 1258, and, with reservations, to the special trea- 
tises of Dorner (de Orat. Chr. Eschatolog. Stuttg. 1844), E. J. Meyer (Komment. 
zu Matt. xxiv. xxv., Frankf. 1857), and the commentary of Meyer (H. W.), p 

433 sq. (ed. 4). 

1 On the prophetic declaration of the appearance of the Lord on Olivet (Zech. 
xiy. 4), and its supposed reference to the circumstances of His second advent, 
and to the locality of His séat of judgment, see Jackson, On the Creed, Vol. x. 
Ῥ- 196. 

2 See Greswell, Dissert. x11. Vol. iii. p. 170 sq., where it is shown, on the 
authority of Maimonides and Apollinarius of Laodicea that the proper begin- 


Lecr. VIL THE LAST PASSOVER. 291 


the commencement (according to Jewish reckoning) of the 
fourteenth of Nisan, the day on which the 
paschal lamb was to be killed and preparation a a τ eaten 
made for the celebration of the Passover, we “ρα. 

are told by the three Synoptical Evangelists = Yar" 2. 
that our Lord answers the inquiry of His 

disciples, where He would have preparation made for eating 
the Passover, by sending Peter and John to 
the house of a believing follower' with a 
special message, and with orders there to make ready. 
Thither, it would seem, our Lord shortly afterwards fol- 
lowed them with the rest of the disciples, and partook of 
a supper, which the distinct expressions of the first three 
Evangelists? leave us no ground for doubting was a pas- 
chal supper, but which the equally distinct expressions of 
the fourth Evangelist,> combined with the peculiar nature 


Luke xvii. 8. 


ning of any feast-day was reckoned from the night [eve] which preceded it. 
The fourteenth of Nisan, though not, strictly considered, a portion of the festival 
(comp. Joseph. Antig. 111. 10. 5), was popularly regarded as such, and, from the 
putting away of leaven, which took place immediately it commenced, and the 
cessation from servile labor (comp. Mishna, ‘‘ Pesach,” Iv. 5), was usually spoken 
of as the “first day of unleavened bread” (Matt. xxvi. 17, Mark xiv. 12. See 
Joseph. Antiq. τι. 15.1, who speaks of the festival as lasting eight days, and 
compare Lightfoot, in Marc. xiv. 12, Friedlieb, Archdaol. § 17, p. 42). 

1 This supposition seems justified by the peculiar use of the words specified by 
all the three Synoptical Evangelists, ὁ διδάσκαλος λέγει (Matt. xxvi. 18, 
Mark xiv. 14, Luke xxii. 11), and still more by the peculiar and confidential 
terms of the message. Compare Kahnis, Lehre vom Abendm. p.5. When we 
further remember that the bearers of the message were our Lord’s most chosen 
apostles, we shall feel less difficulty in admitting the apparently inevitable con- 
clusion {see below) that the supper was prepared within what we have seen were 
popularly considered the limits of the festival, but actually one day before the 
usual time. 

2 These are especially φαγεῖν τὸ πάσχα (Matt. xxvi. 17, Mark xiv. 12, Luke 
Xxii. 7) and ἑτοιμάζειν τὸ πάσχα (Matt. xxvi. 19, Mark xiv. 16, Luke xxii. 13), 
both of which ali sound principles of interpretation wholly preclude our refer- 
ring, either here or John xviii. 28 (opp. to Wieseler, Chron. Synops. p. 381 sq.), 
to the paschal supper. Comp. Gesenius, Thesaur. Vol. ii. p. 1115. 

3 These are (a) ἵνα φάγωσιν τὸ πάσχα (ch. xviii. 28), alluded to in the above 
note, and referred to the day following that which we are now considering; (δ) 
the special note of time (ch. xiii. 1) in reference to a supper which it seems 
nearly impossible (opp. to Lightfoot, in Matt. xxvi. 6) to regard as different 
from that referred to by the Synoptical Evangelists; (c) the definition of time, 
παρασκευὴ τοῦ πάσχα (ch. xix. 14), which it seems equally impossibie (opp. to 
Wieseler, Chron. Synops. p. 836), in the language of the N. T., to understand 


992 THE LAST PASSOVER. Lecr. VII. 


of our Lord’s message to the householder, give us every 
reason for believing was celebrated twenty- 
four hours earlier than the time when it was 
celebrated by the chief priests and Pharisees, 
and apparently the whole body of the nation.! While 


Matt. πανὶ. 18. 


John xviii. 28. 


otherwise than as ‘‘ the preparation,” or day preceding the Passover. See Meyer 
in loc. p. 478 (ed. 8), and Kitto, Journal of Sacr. Lit. for 1850, xi. p. 75 sq.; (d) 
the statement that the Sabbath in the Passover week was “‘a high day ” (ch. xix. 
81), which admits of no easy or natural explanation except that of a coincidence 
of the important Nisan 15 with the weekly Sabbath. The statements are so 
clear, that to attempt, with Wieseler (Chron. Synops.), Robinson (Biblioth. 
Sacr. for Aug. 1845), and others, to explain them away, must be regarded as arbi- 
trary and hopeless. 

1 From what is here said, and the above notes, it will be seen that we adopt 
the view of the Greek Fathers, and indeed of the primitive Church generally 
see the quotations in Greswell, Dissert. XLI. Vol. iii. p. 168 sq., and add Clem. 
Alex. on St. Luke, Sermon CxX1i. Part 11. p. 660, Trans].), that, even as Tal- 
mudical tradition (Baby/. “ Sanhedr.” vi. 2) also asserts, our Lord suffered on 
Nisan 14, and that He ate the paschal supper on the eve with which that day 
commenced. In favor of this opinion we may briefly urge, on the positive side, 
(a) the statements of St. John above alluded to; (b) the peculiar nature of the 
message sent to the οἰκοδεσπότης, which seems to refer to something special and 
unusual. See above, p. 291, note 1; (6) the words Tod TO τὸ πάσχα (Luke 
xxii. 15), and the desire expressed by our Lord (ib.), both of which well coincide 
with the assumption of a peculiar celebration; (d) several apparent hints in the 
Synoptical Gospels that the day on which our Lord suffered was not marked by 
the Sabbatical rest which belonged to Nisan 15. Comp. xxvii. 59 sq., Mark xy. 
21 (?), 42, 46, Luke xxiii. 26 (?), 54, 46; (6) the anti-typical relation of our Lord 
to the paschal lamb (1 Cor. vy. 7), in accordance with which the death of our 
Redeemer on the very day and hour when the paschal lamb was sacrificed must 
be reverently regarded as a coincidence of high probability. See Euthym. in 
Matt. xxvi. 20. On the negative side, we may observe (/) that the main objec- 
tion, founded on the necessity of the lamb being killed in the temple (Lightfoot, 
in Matt. xxvi. 19, Friedlieb, Archdol. ὃ 18, p. 47), is somewhat shaken by the lan- 
guage of Philo, adduced by Greswell ἢ. c., Ὁ. 146, and still more so by the proba- 
bility that the time specified for killing the lamb, viz., ‘‘ between the two even- 
ings” (Exod. xii. 6, Ley. xxiii. 8, Numb. ix. 3), might have been understood to 
mean between the eves of Nisan 14 and Nisan 15 (see Lee, Serm. on Sabb. p. 22), 
and that more especially at a time when the worshippers had become so numer- 
ous that above two hundred and fifty-six thousand lambs (see above, p. 268, 
note 1) would have had to be sacrificed in about two hours, if the ordinary 
interpretation of the 572727 4°23 had been rigorously observed. Again, (g) 
the silence of St. John as to the paschal nature of the supper is in no way more 
singular than his silence as to its Eucharistic character. Both were well-known 
features which it did not fall in with his divinely ordered plan here to specify. 
All that it was necessary to add so as to obviate all misapprehension he does 
add, viz., that the supper was before the Passover; ch. xiii. 1. Lastly, (2) if we 
accept the highly probable statement that our Lord suffered A. D. 30, and the 
nearly certain statement that the day of the week was Wriday (see Wieseler, 
Chron. Syn. Ὁ. 334 sq.), then, beyond all reasonable doubt, He suffered on Nisan 


Lect. VIL. THE LAST PASSOVER. 293 


they are taking their places at the table the same unbe- 
coming contention for priority, which we have already 
noticed on previous occasions, again shows 
itself, called forth, perhaps, in the present 
ease, by a desire to occupy the places nearest One 
towards whom every hour was now deepening their love 
and devotion. But such demonstrations were unmeet 
for the disciples of Jesus Christ; such contentions, though 
not without some excuse, must still be lovingly repressed. 
And in no way could this be more tenderly done than by 
the performance of every part of an office — 
that of washing the feet of those about to sit 
down to meat — which usually fell to the lot of a servant, 
but was now solemnly completed in the case of each one 
of them, yea, the traitor not excepted, by Him whom they 
called, and rightly called, their Master and 
their Lord. And now the supper had com- 
menced,? and round the Saviour were gathered, for the last 


See page 250. 


John iti. 4, δ. 


Ver. 13. 


14, and ate the Passover on the first hours of that day the eve before, — calcula- 
tion clearly showing that in that year the new moon of Nisan was on Wedunes- 
day, March 22, at 8h. 8m. in the evening, and that, consequently, if we allow the 
usual two days for the phase (see Greswell, Dissert. Vol. i. p. 320), Nisan 1 com- 
mene¢ed (according to Jewish reckoning) on Friday evening March 24, but really 
eoincided as to daylight with Saturday, March 25, or Nisan 14 with Friday 
April 7. Compare Wieseler, Chron. Synops. p. 446, whose own tables (indepen- 
dently proved to be accurate) may thus be used against him. See also above, p. 
182, note 1. More might be urged, but the above considerations may perhaps 
lead us to pause before we reject a mode of reconciliation so ancient, so free 
from all forcings of language, and apparently so reasonable and trustworthy. 
For notices of the many different treatises on this difficult subject, see Winer, 
RWB. Art. ‘ Pascha,” Vol. ii. p. 202, and Meyer, Komment. ib. Joh. xviii. 28, p. 
463 sq. (ed. 8). 

1 See Friedlieb, Archiol. § 20, p. 64, and Meyer én loc. p. 875 (ed. 8). It may be 
pbserved that there is some little difficulty in arranging the circumstances of the 
Last Supper in their exact order, as the narrative of St. Luke is not in strict 
harmony with that of St. Matthew and St. Mark. Of the various possible ar- 
rangements, the connection adopted in the text, which is closely in accordance 
with that of the best recent harmonists, seems, on the whole, the most satisfac- 
tory. See Wieseler, Chron. Synops. p. 398 sq., Robinson, Harmony, p. 153 (Tract. 
Soc.), and comp. Greswell, Dissert. xL11. Vol. iii. p. 179 sq. 

2 There seems some reason for accepting, with Tischendorf, the reading of 
BLX, Cant., Orig. (4), δείπνου γινομένου (John xiii. 2), according to which the 
time would seem to be indicated when our Lord and His apostles were just in 
the act of sitting down. Comp. Meyer, in loc. Even, however, if we retain the 


25* 


294 THE LAST PASSOVER. Lect. VIL 


time, those whom He loved so well, and loved even unto 
the end. And yet the hand of the betrayer 

pay. was on the table, —a thought, we are told, 
that so moved the very inward spirit of the 

Lord that He solemnly announced it, and brought it home 
by a general indication’ to that small and saddened com- 
pany that sat around Him, and that now 
asked Him, each one of them in the deep 
trouble of his heart, whether it were possible that it 
could be he. After a more special and pri- 


Matt. χαυὶ. 22. 


John αι. 26. ἜΣ 

pacar vate indication had been vouchsafed, and 
the self-convicted son of perdition had gone 
ark xiv. 25. 


forth into the night, followed in due and sol- 
emn order the institution of the Eucharist,? and with it 
those mysterious words that seem to imply that that most 


received text, γενομένου, the meaning cannot be “supper being ended” (Auth. 
Ver.; compare Friedlieb, Archdol. p. 64); for compare ver. 4, 12, 26, but, ‘‘ when 
supper had begun, had now taken place.”? Comp. Liicke, Commentar uber Joh. 
Vol. ii. p. 548 (ed. 3). J 

1 It seems incorrect and uncritical to confuse the general indication specified 
in the Synoptical Gospels, 6 ἐμβάψας μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ τὴν χεῖρα (Matt. xxvi. 23) or 
ὁ ἐμβαπτόμενος κ. τ. A. (Mark xiv. 20), with the more particular one John xiii. 
26. The first merely indicates what is in fact stated by St. John in ver. 18, that 
the betrayer was one of those who were now eating with our Lord; the second 
is a special indication more particularly vouchsafed to St. John, though perhaps 
in some degree felt to be significant by the rest of the Apostles. See Stier, 
Disc. of Our Lord, Vol. vii. p. 49 (Clark). The change of tense in St. Mark 
ὁ éuBamrouevos (“the dipper with me,” etc.) has been alluded to by Meyer (in 
loc.) as indicating that Judas sat in close proximity to our Lord. This does not 
seem improbable (comp. John xiii. 26), and may be thought to favor the idea 
that St. John was on one side of our Lord, and the traitor on the other. If, 
however, we accept the reading of Lachmann and Tischendorf in ver. 24, νεύει 
οὖν Σίμων Πέτρος καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ Εἰπέ τίς ἐστιν, the usually re- 
ceived opinion that St. Peter was on the other side of our Lord will then seem 
most natural. 

2 This would seem not to have taken place till the traitor went out. The 
strongly affirmative σὺ εἶπας of St. Matthew (ch. xxvi. 25; compare Schoettg. 
in loc.) appears to agree so well with the second and distinct indication of the 
traitor in John xiii. 26, after which we know that he went out, that we can 
hardly imagine that Judas was present at what followed. Again, John lJ. ὁ. 
seems toimply that the supper was going on, whereas it is certain that the cup was 
blessed μετὰ τὸ, δειπνῆσαι, Luke xxii. 20, 1 Cor. xi. 25. If this view be correct, 
we must suppose that the departure of the traitor took place after Matt. xxvi. 
25, and that ver. 26 ἐσθιόντων δὲ αὐτῶν refers to a resumption of the supper 
after the interruption caused by his leaving the apartment. 


» 


Lect. VII. THE LAST PASSOVER. 295 


holy sacrament was to have relation not only to the past, 
but to the future; that it was not only to be commemo- 
rative of the sad but blessed hour that then was passing, 
but prophetic of that hour of holy joy when all should 
again be gathered together, and the Lord should drink 
with his chosen ones the new paschal wine in the king- 
dom of God.’ After a few melancholy words on the dis- 
persion and failing faith of all of those who were then 
around, yea, and even more particularly of him who said 
in the warmth of his own glowing heart that he would lay 
down his life for his Master, and follow Him 

to prison and to death, our Lord appears ὴι δ δὴν 
to have uttered the longer and reassuring 

address which forms the fourteenth chapter of the Gospel 
of St. John, and which ceased only to be 
resumed again, perchance, while all were 
standing in attitude to depart,? in the sublime chapters 


Ch. xv. 1. 


1 The meaning of this mysterious declaration can only be humbly surmised. 
It would appear, however, from the peculiar distinctness of the expressions 
(τούτου τοῦ γεννήματος τῆς ἀμπέλου, Matt. xxvi. 29), that there is a reference 
to some future participation in elements which a glorified creation may sup- 
ply (comp. Rev. xxii. 2), perchance at that mystic marriage supper of the Lamb 
(Rey. xix. 9), when the Lord and those that love Him shall be visibly united in 
the kingdom of God, nevermore to part. The reference to our Lord’s compan- 
ionship with His disciples after the resurrection (Theophy]., Euthym.) can never 
be accepted as an adequate explanation of this most mysterious yet most exalt- 
ing promise. See especially Stier, Disc. ef Our Lord, Vol. vii. p. 166 sq., and 
compare Krummacher, The Suffering Saviour, ch. v. p. 44 (Clark). 

2 It scarcely seems probable that John xv. 1 sq. was uttered in a different and 
safer place (comp. Chrysost. in loc.) than that in which the preceding discourse 
had been delivered, still less that it was uttered on the way to Gethsemane. The 
view adopted by Luthardt (das Johann. Evang. Part. 11. p. 321), Stier (Disc. of 
Our Lord, Vol. vi. p. 266), and other recent expositors, viz., that our Lord uttered 
the discourses in the fifteenth and two following chapters in the paschal apart- 
ment, on the point of departure, and with the disciples standing round Him, 
seems much more natural. The reference to the vine (ver. 1) has led to several 
arbitrary assumptions, e. g., that it was suggested by the vineyards through 
which they are to be supposed to have been passing (Lange, Leben Jesu, Part 
11. p. 1347), or by the vine on the door of the holy place (Joseph. Antig. xv. 11. 
8), to which it has been thought allusion may have been made (Lampe, in Joc.). 
If we are to presume that this heavenly discourse was suggested by anything 
outward, “the fruit of the vine,” of which all had so solemnly partaken, would 
seem to be the more natural object that gave rise to the comparison. See Gro 
tius in loc., and Stier, Dise. of Our Lord, Vol. vi. p. 269 (Clark). 


ia 
296 THE LAST PASSOVER. Lecr. VIL. 


which follow. With the high-priestly prayer in the 
seventeenth chapter, in which, as it were, in rapt and holy 
retrospect the Lord contemplates and dedicates to His 
heavenly Father His completed work,’ the solemn. scene 
comes to its exalted close. 
Still followed by the yet undispersed eleven, our Lord 
now leaves that upper room which had been 
Gethamae (Tus, the witness of such adorable mysteries, and, 
elas passing out of the city and down the deep 
gorge on its eastern side, crosses over the 
Kedron to a garden at the foot of the Mount of Olives, 
where, as we learn from St. John, He was 
Lo.” often wont to resort, and to which the pro- 
duce of the adjacent hill gave the name of 
Gethsemane.’ Arrived at this spot, the Lord leaves the 
Comp. Matt. ami, 2reater part of His saddened Apostles in the 
ae ap outskirts of the garden, while with His three 
more especially chosen attendants, Peter and 
the two sons of Zebedee, He Himself advances farther into 
the solitude and gloom.? And now was solemnly disclosed 


John xviii. 1. 


1 Though it is right to be cautious in pressing grammatical distinctions, it 
still seems probable that the significant aorists in John xvii. 4 sq., ἐδόξασα, 
ἐτελείωσα, ἐφανέρωσα κ. τ. Δ.» point to a contemplation, on the part of the 
Saviour, of His work on earth as now completed and concluded. He now 
stands as it were at the goal, and in holy retrospect commends both His work 
and those loved ones who had been permitted to witness it to the Eternal Father 
in a prayer which has been rightly regarded by all deeper expositors as the 
most affecting and most sublime outpouring of love and devotion that stands 
recorded on the pages of the Book of Life. See Luthardt, das Johann. Evang. 
Part 11. p. 854, and the admirable exposition of Stier, Disc. of Our Lord, Vol. 
vi. p. 421 sq. 

2The most probable derivation appears to be Shak) ΤῊ (“oil-press”), See 
Winer, RWB. Vol. i. p. 424, and comp. Byneus, de Morte Christi, 11. 2.6, Part 
11. p. 73. Foran account of the place with which Gethsemane has been identi- 
tied by modern travellers, see Robinson, Palestine, Vol. i. p. 284 sq. (ed. 2.), 
Smith, Dict. of Bible, Vol. i. p. 684; but compare Thomson, Land and the Book, 
Vol. ii. p. 488. For a representation, see Robertson and Beato, Views of Jerusa- 
lem, No. 20. 

3 The conjecture of Dean Alford that our Lord retired with the three Apos- 
tles into a portion of the garden from which the moonlight might have been 
intercepted by the rocks and buildings on the opposite side of the gorge, does 
not seem improbable, or at variance with the supposed site. Comp. Robinson, 
Palestine, Vol. i. p. 285. 


Lect. VII. THE LAST PASSOVER. 297 


a mystery of unimaginable sufferings and woe. Removed 
from the three Apostles, but only at such a 
distance that their eyes might still behold 
and their poor human hearts strive to sympathize’ with 
the now consciously deepening agony of 
Ver. 37, 38. 

their beloved Master, the Eternal Son kneels, Lute amit. 41. 
bows, and falls forward on the earth. Twice = Marv. 8. 
did the prayer pass those suffering lips, that if it were pos- 
sible, —if it were compatible with His Father’s glory and 
the world’s salvation,—this cup, this cup of a present 
anguish, in which, in an awful and indivisible unity, all the 
future was included, might pass from Him;? and twice, 
with words of meekest resignation, did He 
yield Himself to the heavenly will of Him 
with whom He Himself was one. Twice 
did He return to the three chosen ones whom He had 
bidden to watch with Him in this awful hour of utter- 


Matt. xxvi. 39. 


Matt. xxvi. 39, 42. 
Ver. 38. 


1 While, with the older expositors, we may reasonably believe that our Lord 
was pleased to take the three Apostles with Him that they might be eye-wit- 
nesses to His church of His mysterious agony (ὥστε ἐνδείξασϑαι αὐτοῖς τὰ τῆς 
λύπης, Euthym. in Matt. xxvi. 37), we may perhaps also, with the best modern 
expositors, presume to infer from the special exhortation γὙρηγορεῖτε με Τ᾽ 
€ 400 (Matt. xxvi. 39) that the Redeemer of the world vouchsafed to desire the 
human sympathy of these His chosen followers. See Stier, Disc. of Our Lord, 
Vol. vii. p. 225, where the practical aspects of this opinion are fittingly alluded 
to, and compare Krummacher, The Suffering Christ, § 12, p. 96 (Clark), Ewald, 
Gesch. Christus’, p. 414. 

2 To regard this most holy prayer as merely expressive of that shrinking from 
death and suffering (Meyer, al.) which belongs to the nature our Lord was 
pleased to assume, is as unfitting, on the one hand, as it is precarious, on the 
other, to refer the anguish and amazement that preceded it either to the visible 
appearance (‘tin forma scilicet aliqua dira et horrenda,” Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr. in 
loc.) of the Prince of Darkness, or to a sense of the punitive withdrawal of 
the Paternal presence (Krummacher, p. 97, in language unwarrantably strong) 
from Him who, though now feeling the full pressure of the burden ofa world’s 
sin, not only could say, but did say, ‘‘ Abba, Father.” See Stier, Disc. of Our 
Lord, Vol. vii. p. 237. Heavy indeed was the burden of sin, for it bowed the 
Saviour to the earth (Mark xiv. 35); fearful the assaults of the powers of evil, 
for their hour was at hand (Luke xxii. 53); but it was to the vivid clearness of 
the Saviour’s knowledge of the awful affinity between death, sin, and the powers 
of darkness (see p. 287, note 2) that we may humbly presume to refer the truest 
bitterness of the cup of Gethsemane. See Beck, Lehrwissenschaft, p. 514 (cited 
by Stier), and compare Pearson, Creed, Vol. i. p. 234 (ed. Burt.), Jackson, Creed, 
viii. 12.4. Vol. vii. p. 472 sq. 


298 THE LAST PASSOVER. Lecr. VIL. 


most conflict, and twice did He find Himself bereft even 
of human sympathy — unwatched with, unheeded, alone. 
Yet a third time, if we here’ incorporate the narrative 
of the third. Evangelist, even while the min- 
istry of the sustaining angel and the thick- 
falling drops of bloody sweat? alike bore witness to an 
agony fast transcending the powers of our common hu- 
manity, — yet a third time was that prayer offered to the 
Eternal Father, and again was it answered by the meek 
resignation of the Eternal Son. For the last time the 
Lord returns to His slumbering Apostles, and 
now, with words that sadly remind them that 
the holy privilege of watching with their 
suffering Master is finally lost and forfeited,’ He forewarns 
them that the hour is come and the traitor nigh at hand. 


Matt. xxii. 42. 


Mark xiv. 41. 
Matt. xxvi. 45. 


1 It is perhaps doubtful whether we are to consider the appearance of the sus- 
taining angel recorded by St. Luke as after the first or after the second prayer. 
However this may be, it seems right closely to connect the angelical ministra- 
tion and the agony recorded in the next verse. The infused physical strength 
(ἐνισχύων αὐτόν, ver. 43; compare Matt. iv. 11) was exhibited in the more ago- 
nized fervency of the prayer (ἐκτενέστερον προσηύχετο, ver. 44), but in a man- 
ner that showed that the exhaustion of the human and bodily powers of the 
Redeemer had now reached its uttermost limit. The omission of this verse (ver. 
43) and of that which follows in some manuscripts [AB; 18. 69, 124], and the 
marks of suspicion attached to them in others (see Tisch. én loc.), are apparently 
only due to the mistaken opinion that the nature of the contents of the verses 
was not consistent with the doctrine of our Lord’s divinity. 

2 It has been considered doubtful whether the comparison of the sweat to fall- 
ing drops of blood was only designed to specify the thickness and greatness of 
the drops (Theophyl., Euthym., Bynzus), or whether it also implies that the 
sweat was tinged with actual blood, forced forth from the pores of that sacred 
body (comp. Pearson, Creed, Vol. i. p. 288, ed. Burt) in the agony of the struggle. 
The latter opinion seems most probable, and most coincident with the language 
of the inspired writer. If the use of ®ve) shows that what fell were not drops 
of blood, but of sweat, the special addition of αἵματος seems certainly to indi- 
cate the peculiar nature of the sweat, viz., as an ἱδρὼς αἱματοειδὴς (Diod. Sic. 
Hist. Xvi. 90),and to direct attention to that with which it was tinged and com- 
mingled. See Meyer on Luke xxii. 44, and for notices of partial analogies, 
Jackson, Creed, Vol. vii. p. 483, Bynzus de Morte Christi, Part 11. p. 188. 

8 The exact meaning of the words καϑεύδετε τὸ λοιπὸν καὶ ἀναπαύεσδε 
(Matt. xxvi. 45) has been somewhat differently estimated. To find in them a 
sort of mournful irony (Meyer, in loc.), is, to use the mildest term, psychologi- 
cally unnatural, and to take them in an interrogative sense (Greswell, Dissert. 
XLII. Vol. iii. p. 194), in a high degree improbable. We must, then, either supply 
an εἰ δύνασϑε, with Euthymius, or, as seems much more natural, regard the 


Lect. VII. THE LAST PASSOVER. 299 


Nigh indeed he was; for even now as the Lord was 
speaking an armed heathen! and Jewish 
band, with torches and lanterns, led by the orto.” Ὁ 
lost Apostle, arrives before the entrance of “αν aiv. 43. 
the garden. While they pause, perchance, (77 
and stand consulting how they may best 
provide against every possibility of escape, He whom they 
were seeking, with all the holy calm of pre- 
science, comes forth from the enclosure, and 
stands face to face with the apostate and his company. 
And now follows a scene of rapidly succeeding incidents, 
—the traitor’s kiss,’ the Lord’s question to the soldiers, and 
avowal of Himself as Him whom they were 
seeking; the involuntary homage of the ter- 
ror-stricken band ;° the tender solicitude of the Lord for 


John xviii. 4. 


John xviii. 5. 


words as spoken with a kind of permissive force (Winer, Gram. § 48, p. 278), 
and in tones in which merciful reproach was blended with calm resignation: 
δεικνύς, ὅτι οὐδὲν THs αὐτῶν δεῖται BonSelas, καὶ ὅτι δεῖ πάντως αὐτὸν παραδο- 
ϑῆναι. --- (Ἴγ5. in loc. Hom. LXxxiI. With this the ἐγείρεσϑε, ἄγωμεν (ver. 
46) that follows seems in no way inconsistent. The former words were rather in 
the accents of a pensive contemplation, the latter in the tones of exhortation 
and command. Comp. Mark xiv. 41, where the inserted ἀπέχει seems exactly 
to mark the change in tone and expression. 

1 From the term σπεῖρα used by St. John (ch. xviii. 8), and the separate men- 
tion of ὑπηρέται ἐκ τῶν ἀρχιερέων καὶ Φαρισαίων, we must certainly conclude 
that a portion of the Roman cohort (comp. Valcken. Schol. Vol. i. p. 458), with 
which the fortress of Antonia was usually garrisoned, was now placed at the 
service of the chief-priestly party, probably for the sake of at once quelling any 
opposition that might be offered, and thus of avoiding all chance of uproar at a 
time when public tranquillity was always liable to be disturbed. See Friedlieb, 
Archaol. § 21, p.67. The notice of the ‘“‘torches and lanterns’ (John xviii. 3) 
that were brought, though it was now the time of full moon, shows the deliber- 
ate nature of the plan, and the determination to preclude every possibility of 
escape. Comp. Luthardt, das Johann. Evang. Part τι. p. 378. 

2It may be observed that. both St. Matthew (ch. xxvi. 49) and St. Mark (ch. 
xiv. 45) specially use the compound form, κατεφίλησεν. To assert that this “is 
only another word for ἐφίλησεν" (Alford) seems very precarious, especially 
when the nature of the case would render a studied manner of salutation highly 
probable. Meyer appropriately cites Xenoph. Mem. 11. 6. 88, ὧς τοὺς καλοὺς 
φιλήσαντός μου, τοὺς δ᾽ ἀγαϑοὺς καταφιλήσαντος-. 

3 The statement of Stier, that there was here “no specific miracle apart from 
the standing miracle of our Lord’s personality itself” (Disc. ef our Lord, Vol. 
vii. p. 271), may very justly be called in question. It seems much more correct 
to suppose, with the older expositors, that the mighty words ἐγώ εἰμι (compare 
Mark vi. 50) were permitted to exercise their full miraculous force, in order that 


900 THE LAST PASSOVER. Lect. VII. 


His Apostles, and their reciprocated readiness to defend 
Him, scantily armed as they were, even to 


gee 88, the death; the rash sword-stroke of Peter, 
FEE Es and the healing touch of the divine hand; 


the Lord’s words of meek protest to the chief 
priests’ and multitude; the flight of the terrified Apostles ; 
the binding and leading away of the now 
forsaken Redeemer, — all of which we must 
here not fail thus briefly. to enumerate, but on the details 
of which our present limits will not permit us to enlarge, 
especially as there is still so much before us that requires 
our more close and concentrated attention. 
It was now deep in the night when that mixed Jewish 
εὐρρρνθηαρθαρτνς and Gentile multitude returned to the city 
examination before With Him whom the party of the Sanhedrin 
a ts had so long and so eagerly desired to seize. 
Directed probably by those who sent them forth, or by 
some of the chief priests and elders who we know were 
eliroud Dong the multitude, the soldiers and Jewish 
John xviii. 12, officers? that were with them lead our Lord 
i away to the well-known and _ influential 
Annas,’ adic if not as president of the Sanhedrin, yet 


John xviii. 12. 


alike to friends and foes the voluntary nature of the Lord’s surrender of Him- 
self might be fully declared. See Chrysostom, in doc., and compare the curious 
remarks of Origen, in Matt. § 100, Vol. iii. p. 906 (ed. Bened.). 

1 It seems clear, from the inclusive terms of Luke xxii. 58, that not only some 
of the temple officers, but that some even of the members of the Sanhedrin had 
either come with or recently joined (Euthym.) the crowd, and were now taking 
a prominent part in the proceedings. To call this a ‘‘ Verirrung der Tradition ” 
(Meyer, ub. Luk. p. 486) is as arbitrary as it is presumptuous. Such a fact is 
neither unlikely in itself nor incompatible with the statements of the other 
Evangelists. 

2 The very distinct enumeration of those that took part in the present acts 
(John xviii. 12) may perhaps hint at the impression produced by the preceding 
events, which now led all to help (Luthardt), but is more probably only intended 
to mark that Gentiles and Jews alike took part in the heinous act, ἢ σπεῖρα καὶ 
ὁ χιλίαρχος forming a natural designation of the one part, οἱ ὑπηρέται τῶν 

᾿Ιουδαίων of the other. 

8 This successful man was appointed high-priest by Quirinus, A. Ὁ. 12, and after 
holding the office for several years was deposed by Valerius Gratus, the procu- 
rator of Judea who preceded Pilate. Comp. Joseph. Antig. xviii. 2. 1 sq. He 
appears, however, to have possessed vast influence, as he not only obtained the 


Lect. VIL THE LAST PASSOVER. 301 


certainly as the father-in-law of the acting high-priest, was 
the fittest person! with whom to leave our Lord till the 
Sanhedrin could be formally assembled. The locality of 
the examination that followed is confessedly mos¢ difficult 
to decide upon, as the first and fourth Evangelists seem 
here to specify two different places, though : 
indeed it requires but the simple and reason- prions 
able supposition that Annas and Caiaphas 

occupied a common official residence, to unite their testi- 
mony, and to remove many of the difficulties with which 
this portion of the sacred narrative is specially marked. 
Be this as it may, we can scarcely doubt, from the clear 
statements in St. John’s Gospel, that a pre- 
liminary examination of an inquisitorial na- 
ture, in which the Lord was questioned, 
perhaps conversationally, about His followers and His 
teaching, and which the brutal conduct of 
one of the attendants present seems to show 
was private and informal, took place in the palace of 
Annas. Here, too, it would seem, we must also place the 


Ch. xviii. 13—24, 
Ch. xviii. 19. 


Ver. 22, . 


high-priesthood for his son Eleazar, and his son-in-law Caiaphas, but subse- 
quently for four other sons, under the last of whom James, the brother of our 
Lord, was put todeath. Comp. Joseph. Antig. xx.9.1. Itis thus highly prob- 
able that besides having the title of ἀρχιερεὺς merely as one who had filled the 
office, he to a great degree retained the powers he had formerly exercised, and 
came to be regarded practically asa kind of de jure high-priest. The opinion 
of Lightfoot that he was Sagan, is not consistent with the position of his name 
before Caiaphas, Luke iii. 2 (see Vitringa, Obs. Sacr. vi. p. 529), and much less 
probable than the supposition of Selden (revived and ably put forward by 
Wieseler, Chron. Synops. p. 186 sq.) that he was the Nasi or President of the 
Sanhedrin, an office not always held by the high-priest. Compare Friedlieb, 
Archdol. § 7, p.12. The latter view would well account for the preliminary 
examination, but is not fully made out, and hardly in accordance with John 
xviii. 18. See below. 

1 The words ἦν yap wévSepos x. τ. A. (John xviii. 13) seem certainly to point 
to the degree of relationship as the cause of the sending. They are thus, to say 
the least, not inconsistent with the supposition that Caiaphas was wholly in the 
hands of his powerful father-in-law. Compare (thus far) Sepp, Leben Christi, 
vi. 48, Vol. iii. p. 463 sq. 

2 So Euthymius, in Matt. xxvi. 58,— avery reasonable conjecture, which has 
been accepted by several of the best modern expositors. See Stier, Disc. of our 
Lord, Vol. vii. p. 806 (Clark). 


26 


902 THE LAST PASSOVER. Lect. VII. 


three denials of St. Peter,! the last of which, by the sort of 
note of time afforded by the mention of the 
second cock-crowing, must have occurred not 
very long before the first dawning of day,? and not improb- 
ably at the very time that the Saviour was being led away, 
bound, to Caiaphas, across the court where 
the Apostle was then standing. 
And now day was beginning to draw nigh; yet, as it 
_ would seem, before its earliest rays the whole 
wee ei co body of the Sanhedrin had assembled, as 
see it was a case that required secrecy and 
con” Δα. despatch, at the house of the high-priest 
Caiaphas, whither the Lord had recently 
been brought. The Holy One is now placed before his 


Mark xiv. 72. 


John xviii. 24. 


1 The difficult question of the harmony of the various accounts cannot here 
he fully entered into. If we allow ourselves to conceive that in the narrative of 
St. John the first and second denials are transposed, and that the first took place 
at going out, rather than coming in, there would seem to result this very natural 
account, — that the first denial took place at the fire (Matt. xxvi. 69, Mark xiv. 
66 sq., Luke xxii. 56, John xviii. 25), and was caused by the fixed recognition 
(Luke xxii. 56) of the maid who admitted St. Peter; that the second took place 
at or near the door leading out of the court, to which fear might have driven 
the Apostle (Matt. xxvi. 71, Mark xiv. 68 sq., Luke xxii. 58, John xviii. 17); and 
that the third took place in the court, about an hour afterwards (Luke xxii. 59), 
before several witnesses, who urged the peculiar nature of the Apostle’s harsh 
Galilean pronunciation (see Friedlieb, Archéol. ὃ 25, Sepp, Leben Chr. Vol. iii. 
Ῥ. 478 sq.), and near enough to our Lord for Him to turn and gaze upon His now 
heart-touched and repentant follower. Minor discordances, as to the number 
and identity of the recognizers, still remain; but these, when properly considered, 
will only be found such as serve the more clearly to show not only the indepen- 
dence of the inspired witnesses, but the living truth of the occurrence. For 
further details see a good note of Alford on Matt. xxvi. 69, Robinson, Harmony, 
p- 166 note (Tract Society), and compare Lichtenstein, Lebensgesch. Jes. p. 427 sq. 

2 From a consideration of passages in ancient writers (esp. Ammian. Marcel- 
linus, Hist. xxii. 14) Friedlieb shows that the second cock-crowing must be as- 
signed to the beginning of the fourth watch, and consequently to a time some- 
where between the hours of three and fourin the morning. See Archdol. § 24, 
p- 79, Wieseler, Chron. Synops. p. 406, and compare Greswell, Dissert. xlii. Vol. 
111. p. 211 sq. 

3 From the above narration it will be seen that the contested ἀπέστειλεν (John 
Xviii. 24) is taken in its simple aoristic sense, and as defining the end of the pre- 
liminary examination before Annas, of which the fourth Evangelist, true to the 
supplemental nature of his Gospel (see p. 30, note 3), alone gives an account. 
The usual pluperfect translation (‘‘ miserat’’) is open, in a case Jike the present. 
to serious objection in a mere grammatical point of view (consider the examples 


Lect. VII. THE LAST PASSOVER. 303 


prejudiced and embittered judges, and proceedings at 
once commenced. These were probably not gravely 
irregular. Though neither the time nor perhaps the place 
of meeting were strictly legal in the case of a capital trial 
like the present, there still does not seem any reason for 
supposing that the council departed widely from the out- 
ward rules of their court." With vengeance in their hearts, 
yet, as it would seem, with all show of legal formality, they 
forthwith proceed to receive and investigate the many 
suborned witnesses that were now in readi- 

ness to bear their testimony. But conviction 

is not easy. The wretched men, as we may remember, so 
gainsayed each other that something further 
seemed required before the bloody sentence pena 
which so many present-had now ready on 
their lips could with any decency be pro- 
nounced. Meanwhile the Lord was silent. 
The witnesses were left to confute or contradict each 
other;” even the two that affected to repeat words actu- 


Matt. xxvi. 60. 


Matt. rxvi. 68. 


Ver. 61. 


in Winer, Gr. § 40, p. 246), especially as the verb has a pluperfect in regular use; 
even, however, if these be waived, the exegetical arguments against it seem 
plainly irresistible. See Stier, Disc. of Our Lord, Vol. vii. p. 307 (Clark). 

1 As the council had now, it would seem (Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr. in Matt. xxvi. 
3), ceased to occupy its formal hall of meeting on the south side of the temple, 
called Gazith (τ τλπ maw conclave cesi lapidis), and had moved elsewhere 
(see Friedlieb, Archdol. ὃ 5, p. 10; and correct accordingly Milman, Hist. of 
Christianity, chap. vi1. Vol. i. p. 336, note, and p. 344), meetings in the city and 
in the house of the high-priest may have become less out of order. The time, 
however, was not in accordance with the principle, ‘‘judicia capitalia transi- 
gunt interdiu, et finiunt interdiu” (Gem. Babdyl. “ Sanhedr.” Iv. 1), as the com- 
ment of St. Luke ὡς ἐγένετο ἡμέρα (ch. xxii. 66) would appear to refer to the 
concluding part of the trial, of the whole of which he only gives a summary. 
Compare Meyer, in Joc. p. 448. The preceding part of the trial would thus seem 
to have been in the night. In other respects it is probable that the prescribed 
forms were complied with. The Sanhedrists were doubtless resolved to condemn 
our Lord to death at all hazards; it still however seems clear, from the sacred 
narrative (Matt. xxvi. 60, 61), that they observed the general principles of the 
laws relating to evidence. See Wilson, I/lustr. of the New Test. ch. y. p. 77, and 
for a description of the regular 1aode of conducting a trial compare Friedlieb, 
Archdol. § 26, and the rabbinical quotations in Sepp, Leben Christi, v1. 48 sq., 
Vol. iii. p. 464 sq. 

2 The difference of our blessed Lord’s deportment before His different judges 
is worthy of notice. Before Annas, where the examination was mainly conver- 


904 THE LAST PASSOVER. Lect. VIL. 


ally spoken, and even in this could not agree, were dis- 
missed without one question being put to 

ee them by the meek Sufferer, who, even as 
ancient prophecy had foretold, still preserved 

His solemn and impressive silence. Foiled and perplexed, 
εν ΝΗ the high-priest himself becomes interrogator. 
Matt. evvi.63. With a formal adjuration, which had the 
Sp: Tee HD taeteotiok putting the accused under the obli- 
gation of an oath, he puts a question! which, if answered 
in the affirmative, would probably at once ensure the Lord’s 
condemnation as a false Messiah,? and as one against whom 
i the law relating to the false prophet might 

Se ae plausibly brought to bear. And the an- 
swer was given. He that spake avowed Him- 
self to be both the Christ and the Son of 
God; yea, the Son of God in no modified or theocratic 
sense, but whom their own eyes should behold sitting on 


Mark xiv. 62. 


sational, He vouchsafes to answer, though, as Stier remarks, with dignified repul. 
sion. Before the injustice of the Sanhedrin and the mockery of Herod He is 
profoundly silent. Before Pilate, when apart from the chief priests and elders 
(contrast Matt. xxvii. 12—14), He vouchsafes to answer with gracious forbear- 
ance, and to bear testimony unto the truth. See Stier, Disc. of our Lord, Vol. 
Vii. p. 311 (Clark). 

1 The question, it has been not improbably supposed, was partially suggested 
by the previous testimony about our Lord’s destroying the temple, there being 
an ancient rabbinical tradition that when the Messiah came He was to construct 
a much more glorious temple than the one then existing. See especially Sepp, 
Leben Christi, v1. 48, Vol. iii. p. 468 sq. 

2 When the high-priest asked our Lord whether He were “the Christ, the Son 
of God” (Matt. xxvi. 63), or ‘the Christ, the Son of the Blessed” (Mark xiv. 
61), he was probably using with design a title of the Messiah, which, though not 
appropriated by custom to the Messiah (see p. 239, note 1), was not wholly un- 
precedented, and in the present case was particularly well calculated to lead to 
some answer which might justify condemnation. If our Lord had answered 
that He was truly the Messiah, it is possible the intention might have been to 
put further questions as to His relation with the Father, and so lead Him to 
declare before the Sanhedrin what they perhaps knew He had declared before 
the people (John x. 30). It is, however, not improbable that the formal avowal 
of Messiahship would have been deemed enough to justify condemnation accord- 
ing to the lawalluded to in the text. See the following note. A slightly different 
explanation is given by Wilson, J/lust. of New Test. ch. Iv. p. 64. 

3 Whatever may have been the design of the high-priest in putting the ques- 
tion to our Lord in the peculiar terms in which we find it specified both by St. 
Matthew and St. Mark, — whether it was merely a formal though unusual title, 


Lect. VII. THE LAST PASSOVER. 305 


the right hand of Him with whom equality was now both 
implied and understood, and riding on the | 
clouds of heaven. With those words all ὠ Mark air. 62. 
was uproar and confusion. The high-priest, poids wu 
possibly with no pretended horror,’ rent his clothes; the 
excited council put the question in the new form which it 
had now assumed. Was it even so? Did the seeming 
mortal that stood before them declare that He was the 
Son of God? Yea, verily, He did” Then 
His blood be on His head. Worse, a thou- 
sand times worse, than false prophet or false Messiah, — 
a blasphemer, and that before the high-priest 
and great council of the nation, —let Him 
die the death. 

After our Lord was removed from the chamber, or per- 
haps even in the presence of the Sanhedrin, ot hoo 
began a fearful scene of brutal ferocity, in ery of the attena- 
which, possibly not for the first time in that ay 
dreadful night,? the menial wretches that held the Lord 


Luke xxii. 70. 


Matt. xxvi. 66. 
Mark xiv. 64. 


or one chosen for sinister purposes, —the fact remains the same, that our Lord 
gave marked prominence to the second portion of the title, using a known syn- 
onym and well-remembered passage (Dan. vii. 18) to make the meaning in which 
He used it still more explicit, and that it was for claiming this that He was con- 
demned. See John xix. 7, and the very clear statements of Wilson, J/lustr. of 
the N..T. p. 5 sq. 

1 There seems no good reason for supposing this was either a “‘ stage trick”’ 
(Krummacher), or the result of a concerted plan. The declaration of our Lord 
following the formally assenting Σὺ εἶπας (Matt. xxvi. 64), introduced as it is by 
the forcible πλήν (‘‘ besides my assertion, you shall have the testimony of your 
own eyes;” compare Klotz, Devar. Vol. ii. p. 725), seems to have filled the 
wretched Caiaphas with mingled rage and horror. He gives full prominence to 
the last, that he may better satiate the first. On the ceremony of rending gar- 
ments, which we learn was to be performed standing (compare Matt. xxvi. 65), 
and so that the rent was to be from the neck straight downwards (“ fit stando; 
a collo anterius non posterius’’— Maimon. ap. Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. p. 2146), see 
Friedlieb, Archaol. § 26, p. 92, Sepp. Leben Christi, v1. 48, Vol. iii. p. 418, note. 

2In the words ὑμεῖς λέγετε, ὅτι ἔγώ εἶμι (Luke xxii. 70) the ὅτε is rightly 
taken by the best expositors as argumentative (‘‘ because I am’), the sentence 
here being, to use the language of grammarians, not objective, but causal. Com- 
pare Donalds. Gr. Gram. § 584, 615. 

8 It is extremely doubtful whether Luke xxii. 68—65 is to be conceived as 
placed a little out of its exact order, or as referring to insults and mockery in 
the court of Annas. The exact similarity of the incidents with those specified 


26* 


306 THE LAST PASSOVER. Lecr. VI. 


now all took their satanic part, and in which the terms 
used showed that the recent declaration of 
our Lord was used as a pretext for indigni- 
ties and shameless violence that verily belonged to the 
mee hour of the powers of darkness. Meanwhile 
Matt.cxvii.1. the confused court was again reiissembled, 
ioe and, after some consultation how their sen- 
tence could most hopefully be carried into effect,! they 
again bind our Lord, and lead Him to Pon- 
tius Pilate, who was now in his official res- 
idence in Herod’s palace,” and had, as usual, come to Jeru- 

salem to preserve order during the great yearly festival. 
We may here pause for a moment to observe that, from 
the connection in this portion of St. Mat- 

The fate of Judas ; . . . 

ΡΡΑΡΩΝΜ, thew’s narrative, it would certainly seem 
: reasonable to suppose that it was this last 
act on the part of the Sanhedrin that served suddenly to 
open the eyes of the traitor Judas to the real issues of his 
appalling sin. Covetousness had lured him on; Satan 
had blinded him; and he could not and would not look 
forward to all that must inevitably follow. But now the 


Luke xxii. 63, 


Matt. xavit. 2. 


Matt. xxvi. 67 sq., Mark xiy. 65, make the first supposition perhaps slightly the 
most probable. 

1 The meeting of the council alluded to Matt. xxvii. 1, Mark xv. 1 (compare 
Luke xxiii. 1, John xviii. 28), and defined by the second Evangelist as ἐπὶ τὸ 
πρωΐ (“about morning;” Winer, Gr. § 49, p. 863), was clearly not a new meet- 
ing, but, as the language both of St. Matthew and St. Mark seems clearly to 
imply, a continued session of the former meeting, and that, too, in its full 
numbers (καὶ ὅλον τὸ συνέδριον, Mark xy. 1). The question now before the 
meeting was, how best to consummate the judicial murder to which they had 
recently agreed. 

2 Here appears to have been the regular residence of the procurators when in 
Jerusalem. See Joseph. Bell. Jud. 11. 14. 8, Φλῶρος δὲ τότε ἐν τοῖς βασιλείοις 
αὐλίζεται (compared with Bell. Jud. 11. 15. 5), and see Winer, RWB. Art. 
**Richthaus,” Vol. ii. p. 329. This has been recently -denied by Ewald (Gesch. 
* Christus’, p. 12), who states that the temporary residence of the procurators was 
in an older palace, nearer to the fort of Antonia, but apparently on insufficient 
grounds. For a description of Herod’s palace, and notices of the size and 
splendor of its apartments, see Joseph. Bell. Jud. v. 4. 4, Antig. xv. 9. 8, and 
compare Sepp, Leben Chr, Vi. 58, Vol. iii. p. 496 sq., Ewald, Gesch. des Volk. Isr. 
Vol. iv. p. 498. 


Lect. VII. THE LAST PASSOVER. 307 


lost man sees all. The priests! at whose feet he casts 
the blood-money, jibe him in language al- 
most fiendish; his soul is filled with bitter-  ™“%™™*+ 
ness, darkness, despair, and death. The son — Actsi.25. 
of perdition® goes to his own place. 

But let us return to the further circumstances of our 
Lord’s trial. The Redeemer now stood 
before the gates of him who bore the sword Ἄ ΑΤΟ ΓΈ τα 
in Jerusalem, awaiting the message which ἢ i 
the Sanhedrists, men who shrank from leaven 
though they shrank not from blood, had sent into the 
palace of the procurator, demanding, as it would seem, 
that our Lord should at once be put to death as a danger- 
ous malefactor. With ready political tact the Roman 


1 The use of the definite terms ἐν τῷ ναῷ (Matt. xxvii. 5) would certainly seem 
to imply that the wretched traitor forced his way into the inner portion of the 
temple, where the priests would now have been preparing for the approaching 
festival (compare Sepp, Leben Chr. vi. 78, Vol. iii. p. 609), and there flung down 
the price of blood. With regard to his end, it is plainly impossible to interpret 
the explicit term ἀπήγξατο (Matt. xxvii. 5) in any other way than as specifying 
a self-inflicted death by hanging. Compare the exx. in Greswell, Dissert. XLII. 
Vol. iii. p. 220, note. The notice in Acts i. 18 in no way opposes this, but only 
states a frightful sequel which was observed to have taken place by those, 
probably, who found the body. The explanation of Lightfoot (Hor. Hebr. in 
Matt. l. c.), according to which ἀπήγξατο is to be translated “ strangulatus est, 
a Diabolo scilicet,” is obviously untenable. We may say truly, with Chrysos- 
tom, that it was the mediate work of Satan (ἀναιρεῖ πείσας ἑαυτὸν ἀπολέσαι), 
but must refer the immediate perpetration of the deed to Judas himself. For 
further accounts, all exaggerated or legendary, see the notices in Hofmann, 
Leben Jesu, Ὁ. 333. 

2 This title, given to the wretched man by our Lord Himself, in His solemn 
high-priestly prayer (John xvii. 12; compare vi. 70), coupled with His previous 
declaration, Καλὸν ἦν αὐτῷ εἰ οὐκ ἐγεννήϑη ὃ ἄνϑρωπος ἐκεῖνος (Matt. xxvi. 
24; compare hereon Krummacher, The Suffering Saviour, p. 69), will always be 
regarded by sound thinkers as a practical protest against all the anti-Christian 
attempts of later historical criticism (see the reff. in Meyer, Komment. ib. Matt. 
p. 487) to palliate the traitor’s inexpiable crime, and to make it appear that he 
only wished to force our Lord to declare His true nature, and betrayed Him as 
the best means of ensuring it. Whether such motives did or did not mingle 
with the traitor’s besetting sin of covetousness (comp. Ewald, Gesch. Chr. p. 398 
sq.), we pause not to inquire; we only see in his fearful end the most dread 
instance of the regular development and enhancement of sin in the individual 
(see Miller, Doctr. of Sin, Book v. Vol. ii. p. 461, Clark) that is contained in the 
history of man, and with awe we behold in him the only one who received his 
sentence in person before the last day. See Stier, Disc. of our Lord, Vol. vii, 
p- 56 sq., and a practical sermon by Pusey, Paroch. Serm. x11. Vol. ii. p. 197. 


908 THE LAST PASSOVER. Lect. VIL 


comes forth at their summons, but, with a Roman’s in- 
stinctive respect for the recognized forms of justice, 
demands the nature of the charge brought 
against the man on whom his eyes now fell, 
and whose aspect proclaimed His innocence. The accusers 
at first answer evasively; but soon, as it 
would seem from the narrative of St. Luke, 
find an answer that they calculated could not 
fail in appealing to a procurator of Judzea. With satanically 
prompted cunning they carefully suppress the real grounds 
on which they had condemned the Saviour, and heap up 
charges of a purely political nature ;' chief among which 
were specified, in all their familiar sequence to the procu- 
rator’s ear, seditious agitation, attempted prohibition of 
the payment of the tribute-money, and assumption of the 
mixed civil and religious title of King of the Jews.? It 
seems, however, clear that from the very first the sharp- 
sighted Roman perceived that it was no case for his tribu- 
nal, that it was wholly a matter of religious differences and 
religious hate, and that the meek prisoner who stood 
before him was at least innocent of the political crimes 
that had been laid to His charge with such an unwonted 
and suspicious zeal.’ The prescribed forms must, however, 
be gone through; the accused must be examined, and be 
dealt with according to the facts which the examination 


Ver. 29. 


Ver. 30. 


Ch. xxiii. 2. 


1 This fact has been alluded to by Wilson, J/lustr. of the New Test. p. 5, and 
has been urged by Blunt, Veracity of Gospels, § 18, p. 50 sq. (Lond. 1831.) It did 
not escape the notice of Cyril Alex., who has some good comments upon the 
changed character of the charges. Comment. on St. Luke, Part 11. p. 709. 

2 There are no suflicient grounds for rejecting, with Meyer (ἰδ. Joh. Ὁ. 470, 
ed. 8), the usual and very reasonable supposition that St. Luke’s mention of the 
charges preferred by the Sanhedrin (ch. xxiii. 2) is to be connected with Pilate’s 
question as recorded by St. John (ch. xviii. 29). It would seem that, at first, the 
Sanhedrists hoped to urge the procurator to accept the decision of their own 
court without further inquiry, but, finding this promptly and even tauntingly 
(John xviii. 88) rejected, they then are driven to prefer specific charges. Comp. 
Lange, Leben Jesu, τι. 7.7, Part 11. p. 1504 sq. On the nature of these charges 
see Stier, Disc. of our Lord, Vol. vii. p. 346 (Clark). 

8 The remark of Pfenninger (cited by Stier) is just and pertinent, that ‘ Pilate 
knew too much about Jewish expectations to suppose that the Sanhedrin would 
hate and persecute one who would free them from Roman authority.” 


Lect. VII. THE LAST PASSOVER. 309 


may elicit. That examination, which (we may observe 
in passing) was conducted by the procurator 
in person,’ served to deepen Pilate’s impres- 
sions, and to convince him that the exalted sufferer, whose 
mien and words seem alike to have awed and attracted 
him, was guiltless of everything save an enthusiasm which 
the practical Roman might deem hopeless and visionary,? 
but which it was in no way meet to punish with the sword 
of civil justice. And the yet righteous judge acts on his 
convictions. He goes forth to the Jews and declares the 
Lord’s innocence, and only so far listens to 
the clamors of the accusers as to use their 
mention of the name of Galilee as a pretext 
for sending our Lord to the Tetrarch of that country,’ 
who was now in Jerusalem as a so-called wor- 

shipper at the paschal festival. This course 

the dexterous procurator failed not to perceive had two 
great advantages: it enabled him, in the first place, to rid 
himself of all further responsibility, and in the next it 
gave him an opportunity of exercising the true Roman 
state-craft of propitiating by a trifling act of political 
courtesy a native ruler with whom he had been previously 


John xviii. 33. 


John xviii. 88. 


Luke xxiii. 5. 


Ver. 7. 


1 Pilate, being only a procurator, though a procurator cum potestate, had no 
questor to conduct the examinations, and thus, as the Gospels most accurately 
record, performs that office himself. Compare Friedlieb, Archdaol. § 81, p. 105. 

2 On the character of Pilate see below, p. 315, note 8. His memorable ques- 
tion, ‘“*‘ What is truth??? (John xviii. 88) which occurred in the present part of the 
examination, must apparently neither be regarded, with the older writers, as the 
expression of a desire to know what truth really was (Chrys., al.), nor, again, 
with some recent expositors, as the cheerless query of the wearied and baffled 
searcher (Olshausen, al.), but simply as the half-pitying question of the practical 
man of the world, who felt that truth was a phantom, a word that had no polit- 
ical import, and regarded the attempt to connect it with a kingdom and matters 
of real life as a delusion of harmless though pitiable enthusiasm. See Meyer, in 
loc. p. 472, Stier, Disc. of our Lord, Vol. vii. p. 876 sq. (Clark), and compare 
Luthardt, Johan. Evang. Part 11. p. 400. 

8 Pilate here availed himself of a practice occasionally adopted in criminal 
cases, viz., that of sending away (Luke xiii. 7, ἀνέπεμψεν remisit) the accused 
from the forum apprehensionis to his forum originis. Compare the partly sim- 
ilar case in reference to St. Paul (Acts xxv. 9 sq.), and the conduct of Vespasian 
towards the prisoners who were subjects of Agrippa. —Josephus, Bell. Jud. 111, 
10.10. See Friedlieb, Archiol. § 32, p. 107. 


910 THE LAST PASSOVER. Lxcr. VIL 


αὖ enmity,! and with whose authority he had probably 
often come in collision. 
The sinful man” before whom our Lord now was brought, 
had, we are told by St. Luke, long desired to 
on tion see Him, and is now rejoiced to have the 
ee i wonder-worker before him.’ He puts many 
questions, all probably superstitious or pro- 
fane, but is met only by a calm and holy silence. Super- 
stitious curiosity soon changes to scorn. With a frightful 
and shameless profanity, the wretched man, after mocking 
and setting at nought Him whom a moment 
before, if any response had been vouchsafed 
to his curiosity, he would with equal levity 
have honored as a prophet, now sends the 
Lord back to Pilate, clad in a shining * kingly robe, as if to 


Luke xxiii. 11. 


Ver. 11. 


1 The cause of the enmity is not known, but is probably to be referred to some 
acts on the part of,the procurator which were considered by Herod undue as- 
sumptions of authority. It is possible that the recent slaughter of the Galilzans 
mentioned Luke xiii. 1, if it did not give rise to, may still have added to the ill- 
feeling. The discreditable attempts to throw doubt upon the whole incident, as 
being mentioned only by one Evangelist, require no other answer than the nar- 
rative itself, which exhibits every clearest mark of truth and originality. Comp. 
Meyer, Komment. ub Luk. p. 493 (ed. 8), Krummacher, The lac dap Christ, ch. 
ΧΧΧΙ. p. 268. 

2 On the character of this Tetrarch, which seems to have been a compound of 
cunning, levity, and licentiousness, see above, p. 201, note 1. 

8 The key to the present conduct of this profane man is apparently supplied 
us by the observant comment (comp. Ρ. 48, n. 1) of the thoughtful Evangelist, 
καὶ ἤλπιζέν TL σημεῖον ἰδεῖν ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ γενόμενον, Luke χα. 8. As long as 
there seemed any chance of this desire being gratified, Herod treated our Lord 
with forbearance; when it became evident that he was neither to see nor hear 
anything wonderful, he gave rein to his wretched levity, and avenged his disap- 
ge by mockery. On the incident generally, see Lange, Leben Jesu, 

. 7, Part 111. p. 1512 sq. 

py It has been thought that by the use of the terms éod7Ta λαμπρὰν (Luke 
xxiii. 11) the Evangelist intended to denote a white robe, and that the point of 
the profane mockery was, that our Lord was to be deemed a “ candidatus.” See 
Friedlieb, Archiol. § 82, p. 109, Lange, Leben Jesu, Part 111. p. 1515. This seems 
very doubtful; the word λἀϊρερὸ does not necessarily involve the idea of white- 
ness (the primary idea is ‘‘ visibility” [Ado]; see Donaldson, Crat. § 452), nor 
would the dress of a ‘“‘ candidate” imply the contempt which Herod designed to 
express for the pretensions of this King so well as the ““ gorgeous robe” (Auth. 
Ver.) of caricatured royalty. The remark, too, of Lightfoot seems fully in 
point, “de veste alba cum aliis intellexerim, nisi quod videam hune Evangelis- 
tam, cum de yeste alba habet sermonem, albam eam yocare in terminis;” cap- 
1x. 29, Actsi.10. Hor. Hebr. in Luc. xxiii. 4. 


Lect. VIL. THE LAST PASSOVER. 311 


intimate that for such pretenders to the throne of David 
neither the Tetrarch of Galilee nor the Procurator of 
Judea need reserve any heavier punishment than their 
ridicule and contempt. 

We may well conceive that Pilate was much perplexed 
at seeing our Lord again before his own tri- 
bunal. In the present appearance, however, Mesiabed ο. αι 
of the Saviour, the procurator plainly saw ἃ ρα (osetour 
practical exhibition of Herod’s sentiments, 
and at once resolved to set free one who he was ncw more 
than ever convinced was a harmless enthusiast, wholly and 
entirely innocent of the crimes that had been laid to His 
charge. So, too, he tells the assembled chief 
priests and people.’ But, alas for Roman jus- 
tice! he seeks to secure their assent by a promise of inflict- 
ing punishment, lighter indeed by very far 
than had been demanded,’ yet still by his 
own previous declarations undeserved and unjust. But 
this, though a most unrighteous concession, was far from 
satisfying the bitter and bloodthirsty men to whom it was 
made. Something perchance in their countenances and 
gestures ὃ drove the now anxious judge to an appeal to the 
people, who, he might have heard and even 
observed, were for the most part on the side 
of the Prophet of Nazareth, and whose clamorous requests 


Luke xxiii. 15. 


Ver. 16. 


Mark xv. 8. 


1 We may observe that St. Luke specially notices that on the return of our 
Lord from Herod, Pilate assembled not only the chief priests and rulers, but the 
people also (ch. xxiii. 13); he probably had already resolved to make an appeal 
to them, if his present proposal (ver. 16) were not accepted. See above, p. 263, 
note 1. 

2 The punishment implied in the term παιδεύσας (Luke xxiii. 16) is left unde- 
fined. It was, however, probably no severer than scourging. Comp. Hammond, 
in loc. Here was Pilate’s first concession, and first betrayal of a desire, if pos- 
sible, to meet the wishes of the accusers. This was not lost on men so subtle 
and so malignant as the Sanhedrists. ; 

3 There is a slight difficulty in the fact, that, according to St. Luke (xxiii. 18; 
ver. 17 is of doubtful authority), the request in reference to Barabbas comes first 
from the people, and in St. Matthew (ch. xxvii. 17) that the proposal is made by 
Pilate. All, however, seems made clear by the narrative of St. Mark (ch. xv. 
8), who represents the people as making the request in general terms, and Pilate 
as availing himself of it in the present emergency of this particular case. 


312 THE LAST PASSOVER. Lect. VII. 


now reminded him of a custom, not improbably instituted 
by himself or his predecessors,’ which offered a ready mode 
of subterfuge, — he will offer to release to them one of two, 
the seditious and blood-stained robber Barab- 
bas,” or Jesus who was called, and whom but 
lately so many of those present had triumphantly hailed 
as the Christ. The choice cannot be doubtful. Meanwhile 
he will ascend his tribunal formally to accept and formally 
to ratify the judgment of the popular voice. Unhappy 
man! No sooner has he taken his seat ἢ than 
a fresh appeal comes to him in the form of 
a message from his mysteriously warned wife,* bidding 


Luke xxiii. 19. 


Matt. xxvii. 19. 


“ 


1 The origin of the custom here alluded to is wholly unknown. If Luke xxiii. 
17 were an unquestioned reading, it might seem as if it were some ancient (Jew- 
ish) custom (compare John xxviii. 39) to which the procurator was practically 
obliged (ἀνάγκην εἶχεν) to adhere. As, however, the verse has some appearance 
of being a gloss, and as the other Evangelists seem to refer the custom to the 
ἡγεμών (Matt. xxvii. 15), or to Pilate personally (Mark xy. 6,8; comp. John 
xviii. 89), we may perhaps best consider it as due to the shrewd Roman policy 
of one of the early procurators, by which a not unusual pagan custom (see 
Winer, RWB. Vol. ii. p. 202, ed. 8) was adopted as a contribution to the general 
festivities and solemnities of the Passover. Compare Friedlieb, Archaol. § 33, 
and, for general information on the subject, Bynzus, de Morte Chr. 111. 3, Vol. 
iii. p. 57 sq., and the copious reff. in Hofmann, Leben Jesu, § 83, p. 360. 

2 Nothing more is known of this insurgent than is specified in the Gospels. 
From them we learn that his seditious movements took place in Jerusalem (Luke 
xxiii. 19), that he had comrades in his undertaking (Mark xv. 7), and had also 
acquired some notoriety (Matt. xxvii. 16). The reading which makes the name 
to have been Jesus Barabbas is adopted by Ewald, Meyer and others, but has 
very far from sufficient external support, and is now rightly rejected by Tischen- 
dorf in his last edition. See Vol. i. p. 154. 

3 Compare Matt. xxvii. 19, καϑημένου δὲ adtov.em) τοῦ βήματος. This βῆμα 
was a portable tribunal which was placed where the magistrate might direct, 
and from which judgment was formally and finally delivered. In the present 
case, as we learn frofn St. John (ch. xix. 13), it was erected on a (tessellated) 
pavement, the position of which is unknown, but which was called in Greek 
Λιϑόστρωτον and in Hebrew (probably from the slight ridge [24] on which it 
may have been laid) Gabbatha, and perhaps formed the front of the procura- 
tor’s residence. See Friedlieb, Archdol. § 81, p. 105, Winer, RWB. Art. ‘ Lithos- 
troton,” Vol. ii. p. 29. 

4 According to tradition, her name was Procla, or Claudia Procula, and her 
sympathies Jewish. See Evang. Nicod. cap. 2, and the good comments of Hof- 
mann, Leben Jesu, § 79, p. 840 sq. The dream, which is specified by the Evangel- 
ist as of a disturbing or harrowing nature (πολλὰ ἔπαδον, Matt. xxvii. 19), may 
well be supposed, with some of the early expositors, to have been divinely sent, 
though this need not preclude the further supposition that the woman had pre- 


Lect. VIL. THE LAST PASSOVER. 313 


him not to condemn the Just One who stands before him. 
But the agents of the priestly party are doing their work. 
Many a fiendish whisper is running through 
the crowd that the Nazarene was a_blas- 
phemer, yea, a blasphemer in the face of the elderhood of 
Israel, one who had claimed the incommunicable attributes 
of Jehovah, and who Jehovah’s word had said must expi- 
ate His profanity by His blood. It was 

enough; the worst passions of the rabble 

multitude were now stirred up;' the question is no sooner 
formally proposed than the answer is returned with a fear- 
ful unanimity — “Not this man, but Barab- 
bas.” The astounded procurator for a mo- 
ment tries to reason with them, but now it is 
allin vain. The rabble and their satanic instigators press 
their advantage; wild voices are heard on 
every side; tumult is imminent; the un- 
happy and unrighteous judge gives way, and, by an act 
which was probably as fully understood? as it was con- 
temptuously disregarded, strives to transfer the guilt of 
innocent blood to the infuriate throng around him. Fear- 
fully and frantically they accept it, but their 
end is now gained: Barabbas is set free;° 
the holy Jesus is given up to their will. 


Ver. 20. 


Lev. xxiv. 16. 


John xviii. 40. 
Luke xxiii. 22. 


Ver. 23. 


Hatt. xxvit. 25. 


viously heard of our Lord, and was now more than ever impressed with a feeling 
of His holiness and innocence. Most expositors here rightly call attention to 
the fact that former laws by which Roman magistrates might have been pro- 
hibited from taking their wives with them were not now observed. See esp. 
Tacit. Annal. 111. 33, 34, and compare Sepp, Leben Chr. vt. 56, Vol. iii. p. 507. 

1 The strong word ἀἄνέσεισαν (Mark xv. 11) seems to show the determined way 
in which the priestly party were now endeavoring to turn the current of popu- 
lar feeling against our Lord. It was in consequence of this that we have that 
tutored unanimity of clamor which is specially noticed by three of the Evangel- 
ists. Comp. Matt. xxvii. 22, Luke xxiii. 18, John xviii. 40. 

2 It has been doubted whether Pilate, in washing his hands (according to the 
apocryphal Evang. Nicodemi, cap. 8, ‘‘ before the sun’), was following a heathen 
or a Jewish custom. The latter view, which is that adopted by the sensible com- 
mentator Euthymius, seems, on the whole, most probable. See Deut. xxi. 6, and 
comp. Thilo, Cod. Apocr. Ὁ. 573 sq., Hofmann, Leben Jesu, § 88, p. 361. 

3 It has been thought by some modern writers (Sepp, Leben Chr. Vol. iii. p. 
502, Wratislaw, Serm. and Dissert. p. 8) that this has an antitypical reference to 


27 


914 THE LAST PASSOVER. Lect. VIL 


Now followed the scourging, preliminary to crueifixion, 

| the crown of thorns, the scarlet robe,? and 
rene re” all the horrible mockery of the brutal sol- 
poe gata diery, the Gentile counterpart of the appall- 
wt ing scenes of fiendish derision in which 
Jews had taken part scarcely two hours 

before. The heart of the hapless Pilate was perhaps in 
some degree touched; and, judging from what even a 
Roman could feel for one of the stubborn nation over 
which he ruled, he strove to make one last appeal to the 
wild Jewish multitude without,? by showing to them, with 
the garb of mockery flung around that lacerated and bleed- 
ing form, THE MAN — the man of their own 
race and nation, whom they had given up to 
such sufferings and such shame. But even this last appeal 
mar, was utterly in vain. Nay, worse than in vain. 
Comp. Lev.zxv. That pity-moving sight only calls from the 
priestly party fresh outbursts of ferocity; 

the charge is only the more vehemently repeated: “By 


John xix. ὃ. 


16. 


the ceremony of the scapegoat. This seems in itself in a high degree doubtful, 
and that more especially as the ancient interpreters. all rightly consider the two 
goats as both typifying Christ, the one in His death, the other in His resurrec- 
tion. See Barnab. Epist. cap. 7, Ephrem. Syr. in Lev. xvi. 20, Vol. i. p. 244 sq- 
(Rome, 1737). 

1 The question of the exact species of the thorn it is not here necessary to 
discuss; the rhamnus nabeca (Hasselquist) and the lyciwm spinosum (Sieber) 
have both been specified by competent observers as not unfitted for the purpose; 
but of these the latter seems the more probable. See Friedl., Archdol. § 34, p.119, 
Hofmann, Leben Jesu, § 84, p. 373. As mockery seems to have been the primary 
object (τῷ στεφάνῳ τῶν ἀκανδῶν καϑύβριζον, Chrys.), the choice of the 
plant was not suggested by the sharpness of its thorns; the soldiers took what 
first came to hand, utterly careless whether it was likely to inflict pain or no. 

2 The robe appears to have been the usual cloak of searlet cloth worn both by 
the common soldiers and those in command. In the latter case it was longer 
and of better wool. See Friedlieb, Archdol. § 34, Ὁ. 118, and comp. Winer, k WB. 
Art. “ Kleider,” Vol. i. p. 664. 

3 Though Pilate appears to have sanctioned, or, to say the very least, failed to 
interfere with the mockery and indeed brutalities (John xix. 8) of the soldiers, 
he is still rightly considered by the older expositors to have here made an effort 
to arouse some feelings of pity in the priests and people. See Lange, Leben Jesu, 
τι. 7.7, Part τι. p. 1525. The ἴδε 6 ἄνϑρωπος (ver. 5) was thus said in a tone of 
commiseration, and certainly without any of the bitterness which seems plainly 
to mark the ἴδε 6 βασιλεὺς ὑμῶν of ver. 14. Compare Luthardt, das Johann. 
Evang. Part 11. p. 418. 


Lecr. ὙΠ. THE LAST PASSOVER. 315 


our law ought He to die,” because “He made Himself 
the Son of God.” The Son of God! That title spake 
with strange significance to one pagan heart 
in that vast concourse. The awed? and now 
unnerved proecurator again returns into his 
palace to question the Holy Sufferer, and comes forth 
again, yet once more to make a last effort to save one 
whose mysterious? words had now strangely moved his 
very inmost soul. What a moment for that hapless pagan! 
One expression of an honest and bold determination to 
take a responsibility on himself from which no Roman 
magistrate ought ever to have shrunk, one righteous 
resolve to follow the dictates of his conscience, and the 
name of Pilate would never have held its melancholy 
place in the Christian’s creed as that of the irresolute and 
unjust judge, who, against his own most solemn convic- 
tions, gave up to a death of agony and shame one whom 
he knew to be innocent, and even dimly felt to be divine? 


John xix. 7. 
Ver. 9. 


1 The fear which Pilate now felt, even more than before (μᾶλλον ἐφοβήϑη, 
John xix.8), when he heard that our Lord had represented Himself as υἷος Θεοῦ, 
would naturally arise from his conceiving such a title to imply a divine descent 
or parentage, which the analogy of the heroes and demigods of ancient story 
might predispose him te believe possible in the present case. Comp. Luthardt, 
Johann. Evang. Part 11. p. 405. The message from his wife might have already 
groused some apprehensions; these the present declaration greatly augments. 
The unjust judge begins to fear he may be braving the wrath ef some unknown 
deity, and now anxiously puts the question πόϑεν εἶ σύ (ver. 9), “Was His 
lescent indeed such as the mysterious title might be understood toimply?” To 
jis the ἄνωψεν (ver. 11) forms, and probably was felt by Pilate to form, a kind 
wf indirect answer. See Stier, Disc. of eur Lord, Vol. vii. p. 391 sq. (Clark), 
.where the last question is well explained. Compare Lange, Leben Jesu, τι. 7. 7, 
Part 111. p. 1527. 

2The difficult words διὰ τοῦτο 6 παραδιδούς μέ σοι κ. τ. A.(John xix. 11), 
«which the Evangelist notices as having still more caused (ἐκ τούτου ἐζήτει) 
Pilate to renew his efforts, appear to refer to Caiaphas as the official representa- 
tive of those who formally gave over our Lord to the Roman governor (Matt. 
xxvii. 2, Mark xv. 1), and to imply that his guilt was greater, because, when he 
had no power granted him from above against our Lord, he gave the Lord up to 
one who had, and whose power was plenary. Ina word, Pilate, the instrument 
in God’s hands, the bearer of the sword, is guilty because he acts against his 
convictions, but he who gave up the Lord to this bearer of the sword is more 
guilty, because he knew what he was doing, and was acting against clearer 
knowledge and fuller light. 

3 The character of Pilate, though often discussed, has not always been correctly 


316 THE LAST PASSOVER. Lect. VIL 


But that word was never spoken. Cries now smote upon 
Pilate’s ears, at which every previous impression was for- 
gotten. Instinctive sense of justice, convictions, preposses- 
sions, apprehensions, were all swallowed up in an instant, 
when he heard himself denounced before the multitude, 
before the Sanhedrin, and before his own soldiers as “no 
friend to Cesar”? if he let go one who by His assumptions 
had practically spoken against that dreaded name. “No 
friend to Cesar!” Already in imagination 
the wretched man saw himself in the pres- 
ence of his gloomy and suspicious master, informed against, 
condemned, degraded, banished.? It was enough; Pilate 
must not come to this dishonor; the Galilean must die; 
it remains only to pronounce the sentence. The Roman 


John xix. 12. 


estimated. The fair statement seems to be that he was a thorough and complete 
type of the later Roman man of the world. Stern, but not relentless (see Fried- 
lieb, Archiol. § 34, p. 122), shrewd and world-worn, prompt and practical, 
haughtily just, and yet, as the early writers correctly perceived, self-seeking and 
cowardly (ἄνανδρος σφόδρα, Chrys.; comp. Const. Apost. v. 14), able to perceive 
what was right, but without moral strength to follow it out,— the sixth procu- 
rator of Judza stands forth a sad and terrible instance of a man whom the fear 
of endangered self-interest drove not only to act against the deliberate convic- 
tions of his heart and his conscience, but further to commit an act of the utmost 
cruelty and injustice, even after those convictions had been deepened by warn- 
ings and strengthened by presentiment. Compare Niemeyer, Charakt. Vol. i. 
p. 121 sq., Luthardt, Johann. Evang. Part 1. p. 128 sq., Winer, RWB. Art. 
“Pilatus,” Vol. ii. p. 262, and for references to various treatises on this subject, 
Hase, Leben Jesu, § 117, p. 198. 

1 See John xix. 12, οὐκ εἶ φίλος τοῦ Καίσαρος. This appellation was probably 
not here used in its formal and semi-official sense, ‘‘amicus Czsaris’’ (Sepp. 
Leben Chr. vi. 60, Vol. iii. p. 519), but in its more simple meaning of “ friendly 
and true to the interests of Cesar.” The concluding words πᾶς 6 βασιλέα 
k. T. A. must also have had their full effect on the procurator, who probably 
knew full well how truly in those times ‘‘ majestatis crimen omnium accusatio- 
num complementum erat.’ — Tacit. Annal. 111. 38. 

2 All that the unhappy man was now probably dreading in imagination 
finally came upon him. On the complaint of some Samaritans, Vitellius, the 
President of Syria, sent his friend Marcellus to administer the affairs of Juda, 
and ordered Pilate to go to Rome to answer the charges preferred against him. 
See Joseph. Antiqg. xv111. 4.2. This deposition appear to have taken place in 
the lifetime of Tiberius (see Winer, RWB. Art. “ Pilatus,” Vol. ii. p. 261), and 
about Easter, a. Ὁ. 36. The sequel is said to have been disgrace and misfortunes 
(Euseb.), and, not long afterwards, death by his own hand. See Euseb. Hist. 
Eccl. 1.7. For a good account of his political life, see Ewald, Gesch. Christus’, 
p- 80 sq. 


Lect. VII. THE LAST PASSOVER. 317 


again ascends the tribunal, now determined, yet with words 
of jibing bitterness towards his tempters, 
which show the still enduring struggle in his 
unhappy soul; but again the ominous rejoinder “ We have 
no king but Cesar,” and the struggle is 
ended. The sentence is pronounced, and 
the Saviour is led forth to Golgotha." 

On that concluding scene our words must be guarded 
and few. The last sufferings of the Eternal 
Son are no meet subject for lengthened jx) 
description, however solemn and reverential 
be the language in which it is attempted to be conveyed. 
Let us then presume only with all brevity to illustrate the 
outward connection of events which the inspired writers 
have been moved to record. The chief priests and scribes 
now at length have Him for whose blood they were thirst- 
ing formally delivered over into their mur- 
derous hands. With the aid of the Roman pepo 
soldiery,? who had now removed from Him 
the garb of mockery, they lead the Saviour without the 
gate to a spot of slightly rising ground, known by a name 
which the shape of the rounded summit may perhaps have 


John xix. 15. 


1b. 


1 Into the difficult questions relating to the site of this place we cannot here 
enter further than to remark (a) that the name (Chald. andats) is perhaps 
more plausibly understood as referring to the general form of the place (Cyril of 
Jerus., al.) — possibly a low, rounded, bare hill (Ewald, Gesch. Chr. p. 484)— than 
to the skulls of the criminals executed there (Jerome, al); (Ὁ) that it appears to 
have been in the vicinity of some thoroughfare (Matt. xxvii. 39), and lastly, (6), 
—if it be not presumptuous to express an opinion on a question of such extreme 
difficulty, —that the arguments in favor of its proximity (at any rate) to the 
present traditional site appear to preponderate. See, on the one hand, the able 
arguments of Williams, Holy City, Vol. ii. p. 13 sq., and, on the other, Robinson, 
Palestine, Vol. i. p. 407 sq., to which add an article by Ferguson in Smith, Dict. 
of Bible, Vol. i. p. 1017 sq. The nearness of the assumed site to that of Herod’s 
palace is a fact of some importance. 

2 In John xix. 17 sq. the grammatical subject would seem to be the same as 
the αὐτοῖς of the preceding verse, #. ¢., the ἀρχιερεῖς ver. 15. The soldiers seem 
first specially mentioned ver. 28, but, from the distinctly specified ὅτε ἐσταύρω- 
σαν (ib.) and the statements of the other Evangelists, were obviously throughout 
the instruments by which the sentence was carried out. The party of the San- 
hedrin are however still clearly put forward as the leading actors: they cruci- 
fied our Lord (John xix. 18, Acts v. 80); Roman hands drove in the nails. 


f 97 Ὲ 


518 THE LAST PASSOVER. “Leon. VIL 


suggested — Golgotha, or the place of a skull. Ere, how- 
ever, they arrive there, two touching incidents are specified 
by the Evangelists—the unrestrained lamentation and 
weeping of the women! that formed part of the vast attend- 
ant multitude, and the substitution of Simon of Cyrene? 
as bearer of the cross in the place of the now exhausted 
Redeemer. The low hill is soon reached ; the cross is fixed ; 
the stupefying drink is offered and refused ; ruthless hands 
strip away the garments ;° the holy and lace- 
rated body is raised aloft; the hands are 
nailed to the transverse beam; the feet are 
separately nailed* to the lower part of the upright beam; 
the bitterly worded accusation is fixed up above the sacred 


Matt. xxvii. 34. 
Ver. 37. 


1 This incident is only specified by St. Luke (ch. xxiii. 27 sq.), who, as we have 
already had occasion to remark, mentions the ministrations of women more 
frequently than any of the other Evangelists. See Lect. 1. p. 43, note 2. 

2 He is said, both by St. Mark (ch. xv. 21) and St. Luke (ch. xxiii. 26), to have 
now been ἐρχόμενος ἀπὸ ἀγροῦ, --- a comment which may perhaps imply that he 
had been laboring there, and was now returning (‘‘ onustus ligno,” Lightfoot, 
Hor. Hebr. in Marc. l. c.), some time before the hour when (if the day was the 
παρασκευὴ τοῦ πάσχα) servile work would commonly cease. Comp. Friedlieb, 
Archdaol. § 17, p. 41. If this be the meaning of the words, they may be urged as 
supplying a subsidiary proof that the day was Nisan 14, and not Nisan 15. See 
p. 291, note 2, where this and a few similar passages are briefly specified. 

8 See Matt. xxvii. 85, Mark xv. 24, Luke xxiii. 84, John xix. 238. None of 
these passages are opposed to the ancient belief that a linen cloth was bound 
round the sacred loins, as the apocryphal Evang. Nicodemi (cap. 10) cursorily, 
and so perhaps with a greater probability of truth, mentions in its narrative of 
the crucifixion. What we know of the prevailing custom has been thought to 
imply the contrary (see Lipsius, de Cruce, 11.7); still, as this is by no means 
certain, the undoubted antiquity of the apocryphal writing to which we have 
referred may justly be allowed to have some weight. See Hofmann, Leben 
Jesu, § 84, p. 873, and compare Hug, Irieb. Zeitschr. vil. p. 161 sq. (cited by 
Winer). 

4 This is a very debated point. The arguments, however, in favor of the 
opinion advanced in the text, viz., that not three (Nonnus, p. 176, ed. Passow) 
but four nails were used, seem perhaps distinctly to preponderate. See Friedlieb, 
Archiol. § 41, p. 144 sq., Hofmann, Leben Jesu, Ὁ. 875. The attempt to show that 
it is doubtful even whether the feet were nailed at all (comp. Winer, de Pedum 
Affixione, Lips. 1845, and RWB. Vol. i. p. 678), must be pronounced plainly futile, 
and is well disposed of by Meyer, Komment. wb. Matt. xxvii. 35, p. 5383 sq. For 
a full account of the form of the cross, which, in the present case, owing to the 
τίτλος fixed thereon (John xix. 19), was probably that of the erux immissa (Rls 
not of the crux commissa (T ),see esp. Friedlieb, Archaol. § 36, p. 180; and for 
the assertion that the holy body was raised, and then nailed, ἐδ. § 41, pp. 142, 
144. 


Lect. VIL. THE LAST PASSOVER. 319 


head; the soldiers divide up and cast lots for the gar- 
ments, and then, as St. Matthew has paused 
to specify, sit watching, the stolid, impassive 
spectators of their fearful and now completed work. 

It was now, as we learn from St. Mark, about the third 
hour,! and to the interval between this and 
mid-day must we assign the mockeries of the _,Qccurrencessrom 


Ch. xxvii. 36. 


the therd to the sixth 
fe 2 1Ὲ] 1er hour. 
passers by, the br utalities of the soldiery, and "ow. εν 
the display of inhuman malignity on the part ὀ Μαιῖι. eavii. 39. 
Luke xxiii. 36. 


of the members of the Sanhedrin, who now jyatt. μαυὶ ΑἹ, 
were striving, chief priests and elders of Is- 

rael as they were, by every fiendish taunt and jibe to add 
to the agonies of the crucified Lord, when 

even, as it would seem, the rude multitude ,@™-™eom 
stood around in wistful and perhaps commis- 

erating silence. To the same period also must we refer 
the narrative of the mercy extended to the 
penitent malefactor, and St. John’s affecting 
notice of our Lord’s tender care for the for- 
lorn Virgin mother, who, with her sister? and the faith- 


Luke xxiii. 89. 
Ch. xix. 26. 


1 This, again, is a doubtful point, owing to the distinct statement of St. John, 
who specifies it as pa ὡς ἕκτη (ch. xix. 14). As the supposition that the fourth 
Evangelist here was reckoning from midnight (comp. Wieseler, Chron. Synops. 
p. 410 sq., Greswell, Dissert. XLi1. Vol. iii. p. 229) does not seem satisfactorily 
made out, and the old assumption of an erratum (5 for 7 ‘; compare Alford, in 
loc.) extremely precarious, we must either leave the difference as we find it, or, 
what is not unreasona®le, suppose that the hour of crucifixion was somewhere 
between the two broad divisions, the third and sixth hours, and that the one 
Evangelist specified the hither, the other the farther terminus. 

2 It has recently been considered doubtful whether three or four women are 
here specified; ὁ. e., whether the sister of the blessed Virgin is to be regarded as 
identical with the wife of Clopas, or whether we have in fact two pairs, Mary 
and her sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. The latter opinion 
has been maintained by Wieseler (Stud. wu. Krit. for 1840, p. 648 sq.) and adopted 
by Lange (Leben Jesu, Part τι. p. 1558), Ewald (Gesch. Chr. p. 488), Meyer (in 
loc.), and others, but on grounds that seem wholly insufficient to overcome (a) 
the improbability that the sister of the Virgin should have been thus vaguely 
mentioned in a passage which appears studiedly explicit and distinct, and (δ) the 
improbability arising from the general style of St. John that καὶ should have 
been omitted (the Syr.-Pesh. inserts it), and the women thus enumerated in pairs. 
Contrast John ii. 12, where we might have almost expected such a separation, 
and ch. xxi. 2. Wieseler conceives the unnamed ἀδελφὴ to have been Salome, 
and Meyer finds in the passage a trace of the Apostle’s peculiarity not directly 


320 THE LAST PASSOVER. Lect. VIL. 


ful Mary of Magdala, was remaining up to this fearful 
hour nigh to the Redeemer’s cross, but who now, it would 
seem, yielded to what she might have either inferred or 
perceived was the desire of her Lord, and was led away by 

the beloved Apostle.t , 
But could all these scenes of agony and woe thus fear. 
fully succeed each other, and nature remain 


Th darkn : : . . 
from the sixth ὸ UMpassive and unmoved? The sixth hour 
the sinth gers now had come. Was there to be no outward 
Matt. xevii. 45. : wn 
Wake oles. sign, no visible token that earth and heaven 


were sympathizing in the agonies of Him by 

whose hands they had been made and fashioned ? No, ver- 
ily, it could not be. If one Evangelist, as we have already 
AE ie: observed, tells us that on the night of the 
Matt. xeni.45,  WOord’s birth a heavenly brightness and glory 
faker ® | shone forth amid the gloom, three inspired 
witnesses now tell us that a pall of darkness 

was spread over the whole land? from the sixth to the 


to name himself or his kindred; but as ch. i. 42 (where Meyer asserts that James 
was then called though not mentioned) proves utterly nothing, and ch. xxi. 2 
proves the contrary, we seem to have full reason for adhering to the usual ac- 
ceptation of the passage, and for believing that the sister of the Virgin was the 
wife of Clopas. See Luthardt, das Johann. Evang. Part 11. p. 419, Ebrard, 
Kritik der Evang. Gesch. ὃ 108, p. 555. 

1 This seems a reasonable inference from John xix. 27, the am’ ἐκείνης ὥρας 
appearing to mark that the apostle at once and on the spot manifested his lov- 
ing obedience by leading away the Virgin mother to his own home. After this 
(μετὰ τοῦτο, ver. 28), and during the three-hour interval ©f darkness, the apos- 
tle would have returned, and thus have been the witness of what he has re- 
corded, ver. 28 sq. In confirmation of this view, it may be noticed that among 
the women specified as beholding afar off (Matt. xxvii. 56, Mark xv, 40) the Vir- 
gin is not mentioned. Compare Greswell, Dissert. xLi1. Vol, iii. p. 249, Stier, 
Dise. of our Lord,V ol. vii. p. 479 (Clark). 

2 This darkness, as now seems properly admitted by all the best expositors, 
was neither due to any species of eclipse, nor to the deepened gloom which in 
some cases precedes an earthquake (comp. Milman, Hist. of Chr. Vol. i. 368), but 
was strictly supernatural,—the appointed testimony of sympathizing nature. 
‘“‘ Yea, creation itself,” as it has been well said, ‘‘ bewailed its Lord, for the sun 
was darkened, and the rocks were rent.’”?—Cyril Alex. Comment. on St. Luke, 
Serm. oxiit. Part 11. p. 722, where reference is made to Amos (ch. viii. 9, not v. 8) 
as having foretold it. Compare Bauer, de Méirac. obscurati solis, Wittenb. 1741, 
External heathen testimony appears not to have been wanting (see Tertullian, 
Apologet. cap. 21), though, as recent chronologers have properly shown, the 
constantly-cited notice of the freedman Phlegon (apud Syncell, Chronogr. Vol, 


Lect. ὙΠ. THE LAST PASSOVER. αὶ 


ninth hour. But while they thus specially notice the 
interval, it may be observed that they maintain the most 
solemn reserve as to the incidents by which it was marked. 
Though full and explicit as to the circumstances of the 
agony in the garden, they are here profoundly silent. 
The mysteries of those hours of darkness, when with the 
sufferings of the agonized body mingled the-sufferings of 
the sacred soul, the struggles with sinking nature, the accu- 
mulating pressure of the burden of a world’s sin, the mo- 
mently more and more embittered foretastings of that 
which was its wages and its penalty, the clinging despera- 
tion of the last assaults of Satan and his mustered hosts, 
the withdrawal and darkening of the Paternal presence, — 
mysteries such as these, so deep and so dread, it was not 
meet that even the tongues of Apostles should be moved 
to speak of, or the pens of Evangelists to record. Nay, 
the very outward eye of man might now gaze no further. 
All man might know was by the hearing of the ear. One 
loud ery revealed all, and more than all, that it is possible 
for our nature to conceive,—one loud cry of unfathom- 
able woe and uttermost desolation,” and yet, even as its 
very accents imply, of achieved and consummated victory. 


i. p. 614, ed. Bonn) has no reference to the present miracle, but to an ordinary 
eclipse the year before. See Ideler, Handb. der Chronol. Vol. ii. p. 427, Wieseler, 
Chron. Synops. Ῥ. 388. 

1 It is worthy of consideration whether the important and difficult passage, 
Col. ii. 15, may not have some reference to this awful period. If, as now seemg 
grammatically certain, ἀπεκδυσάμενος is to be taken in its usual and proper 
middle sense, may not the ‘‘ stripping off from Himself of powers and principal- 
ities? have stood in some connection as to time with the hours when the dying 
but victorious Lord, even out of the darkness, called unto His God, and, by His 
holy surrender of Himself into the hands of His Eternal Father, quelled satanic 
assaults, which, though not recorded, and scarcely hinted at (compare, however, 
Luke xxii. 53, and observe Luke iy. 13), we may still presume to think would then 
have been made with fearfully renewed energies. See Com. on Col. l. c. p. 161. 

2 On the words of our Lord here referred to— which are indeed far from 
being ‘‘ perhaps a phrase in common use in extreme distress,”? as Milman coldly 
terms them (Hist. of Chr. Vol. i. p. 864), and which the two inspired witnesses 
who record them have retained even in the very form and accents in which they 
were uttered —see esp. the thoughtful comments of Stier, Disc. of our Lord, 
Vol. vii. p. 483 sq., Lange, Leben Jesu, 11. 7. 9, Part 111. p. 1573, and compare 
Thesaur. Theol. (Crit. Sacr.) Vol. ii. 247 sq. 


322 THE LAST PASSOVER. Lect. VII. 


Even from the lowest depths of a tortured, tempted, sin- 
burdened, and now forsaken humanity —even from the 
remotest bound, as it were, of a nature thus traversed to 
4s extremest limits,’ and thus feelingly realized in all the 
neasures of its infirmity for man’s salvation, the Saviour 
cried unto God as His God; the Son called 
unto Him with whom, even in this hour of 
dereliction and abandonment, He felt and 
knew that He was eternally one; yea, and, as the language 
of inspiration has declared, He “was heard in that He 
feared.” With the utterance of that loud 
cry, as we perhaps presume to infer from the 
incidents that followed,’ the clouds of darkness rolled away 
and the light broke forth. If this be so, the first mo- 
ments of that returning light were profaned by a mockery 
and ἃ malignity on which it is fearful to dwell. We shud- 
der as we read that the words of that harrowing exclama- 
tion —words first spoken by the prophetic 
Psalmist, and the outward meaning of which 
no Jew could possibly have misunderstood — were studi- 
ously perverted by a satanic malice,’ and that the most holy 


Matt. xavii. 47. 
Mark xv. 34. 


Heb. v. 7. 


Psalm xxii. 1. 


1 Compare Cyril. Alex.: ‘‘ He who excels all created things, and shares the 
Father’s throne, humbled Himself unto emptying, and took the form of a slave, 
and endured the limits of human nature, that he might fulfil the promise made 
of God to the forefathers of the Jews.” — Commentary on St. Luke, Serm. Cuitt. 
Part 11. p. 722. 

2 It seems most consistent with the deep mysteries of these hours to conceive 
that the darkness had not passed away when the Lord uttered the opening 
words of Psalm xxii. 1, but that immediately afterwards light returned. See 
Stier, Disc. of our Lord, Vol. vii. p. 483 (Clark). With the returning light 
mockery would not unnaturally break forth anew. However this may be, we 
must certainly maintain that these words of Psalm xxii. were not, as asserted 
by Milman (Hist. of Christianity, Vol. i. p. 364), our Lord’s “last words,” it 
being perfectly clear from St. Matthew that, after the “EAwl, ‘EA@l, k. T. Δ.» 
our Lord uttered at least another cry (πάλιν κράξας, ch. xxvii. 50). The re- 
ceived opinion seems undoubtedly the right one; according to which the sixth 
word from the cross was Τετέλεσται (John xix. 30), the last words Πάτερ, eis 
τὰς χεῖράς gov παρατίϑεμαι τὸ πνεῦμά μου [compare παρέδωκεν τὸ πνεῦμα, 
John xix. 80], as recorded by St. Luke (ch. xxiii. 46). Compare, if necessary, 
Stier, Disc. of our Lord, Vol. viii p. 28 (Clark), Meyer, wb. Luk. p. 498 (ed. 3). 

3 There is no reason for thinking, with Euthymius (in Matt. xxvii. 47), that 
those who said Ἡλίαν φωνεῖ (Matt. 1. c.) were Roman soldiers (τὴν ‘EBpalda 


Lect. VIL. THE LAST PASSOVER. 323 


name of the eternal Father was used by the Jewish repro- 
bates that stood around as that wherewith they now dared 
to make a mock at the Eternal Son. But the 
end had now come. One solitary act of in- 
stinctive compassion’ was yet to be performed; 
the sponge of vinegar was pressed to the parching lips; 
the dying Lord received it, and, with a loud cry of con- 
ying ’ y, 
sciously completed victory for man, and of most loving 
resignation unto God,? bowed meekly His divine head and 
gave up the ghost. 

Jesus was dead. Can we marvelg then, — me portents that 
when we read that the most awful moment “an """" 
} 1 . . Hatt. xxvii. 51. 
in. the history of the world was marked by = 4" am 
mighty and significant portents? —that the Beier 
veil that symbolically separated sinful man ~~ 


from his offended God was now rent in twain,® that the 


Matt. xxvii. 47. 
Mark xv. 35. 


φωνὴν ἀγνοοῦντες), who only caught the sound of the words uttered. There 
was here neither misunderstanding nor imperfect hearing, but only a mockery, 
which had now become verily demoniacal. 

1 This would seem to be the correct statement, as we learn from Mark xv. 86, 
that the poor wretch joined in the mockery of the-rest, and yet must apparently 
infer from Matt. xxvii. 49 that his present act was regarded as one of mercy 
which his companions sought to restrain. It may be true, as has been suggested 
by some expositors, that the man was really touched by the Saviour’s suffering, 
now perhaps made more apparent by the διψῶ of John xix. 28, and that under 
the cover of mockery he still persisted in performing this last act of compassion. 
At any rate, the δραμὼν (Matt. xxvii. 48, Mark xv. 36) and ἄφετε (Mark xv. 36, 
not improbably ‘‘let me alone’’) seem very fairly to accord with such a suppo- 
sition. 

2 The remark of Draseke (cited by Stier) is, perhaps, not wholly fanciful, that 
the It is finished was more especially directed to men, as the farewell greeting to 
earth, and that the Father, into thine hands was, as it were, ‘‘ His entrance- 
greeting to heaven.” — Disc. of our Lord, Vol. viii. p. 28 (Clark). 

3 That the veil of the temple here specified was that which separated, not the 
holy place from the rest of the temple (Hug), but the holy place from the holy 
of holies, seems most clearly shown not so much by the mere term used (κατα- 
πέτασμα not κάλυμμα; Friedlieb, Archdol. § 47, p. 172), as by the authentic 
elucidations supplied by the inspired author of the Epistle to the Hebrews. 
See ch. ix. 7 sq., x. 20. The remark of Lightfoot (Hor. Hebr. in Matt. xxvii. 51) 
that, according to custom, the high-priest entered on one side of the inner veil, 


may perhaps illustrate the full meaning of the sign; the veil now, as we are dis- . 


tinctly told by St. Luke, was rent in the midst (ἐσχίσϑη μέσον, ch. xxiii. 45), a 
statement made still more explicit by the ἐσχίσϑη ἀπὸ ἄνωδεν ἕως κάτω εἰς δύο 
of St. Matthew (ch. xxvii. 51) and St. Mark (ch. xv. 38). 


ν᾿ 


324 THE LAST PASSOVER. Lect. VII. 


earth quaked, that the rocks were rent and the graves 
opened, and that by the vivifying power of the Lord’s 
death they that slumbered therein arose, and after their 
Saviour’s resurrection were seen by many witnesses?! 
Such things were known, patent, and recognized; they 
were seen by Jews and by Gentiles; by the centurion on 
Golgotha, and by the priest in the temple; 

aa ee by the multitudes that now beat their breasts 

cake ew Sin amazed and unavailing sorrow, and by the 

women and kinsmen that stood gazing afar 

off; they were believed in and they stand recorded; yea, 
and in spite of all the negative criticism that the unbelief 
of later days has dared to bring against them,? they remain, 
and will remain even unto the end of time, as the solemn 


1 Nothing can be more unwarrantable than to speak of this statement of the 
inspired Evangelist as the mythical conversion into actual history of the sign of 
the rent graves (Meyer, wb. Matt. xxvii. 52), nor less in harmony with sound 
principles of interpretation than to term these resurrections (ἢγέρϑησαν, ver. 52) 
visionary appearances of the spirits (contrast πολλὰ σώματα, ver. 52) of deceased 
brethren confined to the minds of our Lord’s followers (Milman, Hist. of Chr. 
Vol. i. p. 865), when the words of St. Matthew are so particularly definite and 
explicit. Compare ver. 52,53. Weare plainly told that at the Lord’s death the 
bodies of slumbering saints arose (φωνὴ αὐτοὺς ἤγειρε, Chrys.; but?); and we 
are as plainly told, with the addition of a special and appropriate note of time, 
that after our Lord’s resurrection they entered into the Holy City and were 
seen there by many. Into particulars it is unwise and precarious to enter; if, 
however, further comments be needed, the student may be referred to the special 
dissertation of Calmet. See Journal of Sacr. Lit. for 1848, p. 112, and comp. 
Lardner, Works, Vol. x. p. 340. 

2 Some critical writers have ventured to consider Matthew xxvii. 52 an inter- 
polation. See Norton, Jntrod. to the Gospels, Vol. i. p. 216, and compare Gers- 
dorf, Beitrage, Ὁ. 149. Such a statement is wholly unsupported by external 
evidence, and is rejected even by those who regard this portion of the narrative 
as mythical. See Meyer, Komment. wb. Matt. p. 542 (ed. 4). Reference has been 
freely made by this last-mentioned writer and others to the Evang. Nicodem. 
cap. 17 sq. as containing the further development of the incident. This state- 
ment, probably designed to be mischievous, is not wholly correct. The notices 
of the event in question are really very slight, and in language closely resembling 
that of St. Matthew (see Zvang. Nicod. cap. 11); in fact, the only use made of 
the incident by the apocryphal writer is to introduce the narrative of Carinus 
and Leucius, which refers nearly exclusively to the Lord’s descent into Hades 
and appearance in the under world. If the Hvang. Nicod. tends to prove any- 
thing, it is this: that the ancient writer of that document regarded Matt. xxvii. 
52 as an authentic statement, and as one which no current traditions enabled 
him to embellish, but which was adopted as a convenient starting-point for his 
legendary narrative. 


Lect. VIL. THE LAST PASSOVER. 325 


testimony of nature to the truth of the mighty mystery of 
redeeming Love. 

And now the day was beginning to wane, and within 
Jerusalem all was preparation for paschal ἜΣ sate 
solemnities which henceforth were to lose _ thecross and burial 
their deepest and truest significance. Eager Sistas «dil 
bands of householders’ were now streaming into the 
temple, each one to slay his victim, and to make ready 
for the feast. It was a Passover of great 
solemnity. The morrow was a high day, a 
double Sabbath, a day which was alike the solemn fifteenth 
of Nisan and the weekly festival.?, Not unnatural, then, 
was it that petition should be made to Pilate for the 
prompt removal from the cross of the bodies of those who 
had been crucified in the forenoon, that the approaching 
day might not be legally profaned. The petition is 
granted; the legs of the two malefactors 
are broken to hasten their death,®? but no 
bone is broken of that sacred body which now hung life- 
less between them. A spear is thrust into 
the holy side, perchance in the neighborhood 
of the heart, to make sure that life is extinct, and forthwith 
a twofold sign was vouchsafed, whether natural or supernat- 


John xix. 31. 


John «ἴα. 32. 


Ver. 34. 


1 See especially Friedlieb, Archiol. § 18, p. 47 sq., where this and other cere- 
monies connected with the Passover are very fully illustrated. 

2 The efforts of those writers who regard this Saturday as Nisan 16 cannot be 
considered successful in proving it to have been a “high day” (John xix. 31). 
The principal fact adduced in favor of such an opinion is that on this day the 
first-fruits were presented in the temple. See Wieseler, Chron. Synops. p. 385, 
Robinson, Harmony, p. 150 (Tract Society). If, on the contrary, the day be re- 
garded as Nisan 15, then all becomes intelligible and self-explanatory, the 
solemn character of Nisan 15 being so well known and so distinctly defined. 
See Exod. xii. 16, Lev. xxiii. 7. 

3 The breaking of the legs has been thought to include a coup de grace (see 
Friedlieb, Archdol. § 48, and compare Hug, Fried. Zeitschr. 111. p. 67 sq.), as the 
crurifragium would not seem sufficient in itself to extinguish life. As, how- 
ever, such an expansion of the term has not been made out (Amm. Marcell. 
Hist. x1v.9 is certainly not sufficient to prove it), and as the present passage 
seems to show that it had reference to the death of the sufferer (comp. John xix. 
33), we must conclude that it was found by experience to bring death, possibly 
slowly, but thus not unconformably with the fearful nature of the punishment. 


28 


896 THE LAST PASSOVER. Lect. VIL. 


ural we know not,! but which the fourth Evangelist was 
specially moved to record, and in which we may, with all 
the best interpreters of the ancient church, not perhaps 
unfitly recognize the sacramental symbol both of the 
communion of our Master’s body and blood, and of the 
baptismal laver of regenerating grace. The sacred body 
was taken from the cross, and was still in the custody of 
the soldiers, when a secret disciple, the wealthy Joseph of 
Arimathea, who, as a member of the supreme court, would 
know that the bodies were to be removed, now came to 
Golgotha,? and, after finding that the procurator’s permis- 

sion was carried out, emboldened himself so 

far as to beg personally for the Lord’s body 
from that unrighteous judge. The request is freely 
granted,’ and the holy body is borne by the 
pious Joseph to a garden nigh at hand, 
which was probably his own property, and 
in which was a tomb that he had hewn out of the rock, 


Mark xv. 42. 


John xix. 41. 
Matt. xxvii. 60. 


1 The emphatic language of St. John (ch. xix. 84) seems to favor the opinion 
that it was a supernatural sign. The use made of this incident by Dr. Stroud 
(Physical Death of Christ, Lond. 1849) and others to prove that our Lord died of 
a ruptured vessel of the heart is ingenious, but seems precarious. Without in 
any way availing ourselves of the ancient statement that our Lord’s death was 
hastened supernaturally (see Greswell, Dissert. xL11. Vol. iii. p. 251), we may 
perhaps reasonably ascribe it to the exhausting pains of body (see Richter quoted 
by Friedlieb, Archdaol. § 44), which, though in ordinary cases not sufficient to 
bring such speedy death, did so in the present, when there had been not only 
great physical suffering previously, but agonies of mind which human thought 
cannot conceive, and which clearly appear (compare Matt. xxvii. 46) to have 
endured unto the very end. 

2 See Matt. xxvii. 57, where the ἦλϑεν would seem naturally to have reference 
to the scene of the incidents last mentioned, ἡ. e., to the place of crucifixion. 
While the soldiers were waiting for the sequel of the crurifragium (John xix. 
82), Joseph would easily have had time to go to the pretorium and prefer his 
request to Pilate. The touch supplied by the τολμήσας of the graphic St. Mark 
(ch. xv. 48) should not be left unnoticed. 

8 It is not improbable that the term ἐδωρήσατο was designedly used by St. 
Mark (ch. xv. 45), as implying that Pilate gave up the holy body without de- 
manding money for it. See Wetstein, in Joc. Had not Joseph been moved to 
perform this pious office, it would seem that the Lord’s body would have been 
removed to one of two common sepulchres reserved for those who had suffered 
capital punishments, —“ unum occisis gladio et strangulatis, alterum lapidatis 
[qui etiam suspendebantur] et combustis.” ‘‘Sanhedr.” vi. 5, cited by Light 
foot, in Matt. xxvii. 58. Comp. Sepp, Leben Christi, v1. 76, Vol. iii. p. 602. 


Lecr. VII. THE LAST PASSOVER. 327 


wherein man had never yet been laid. Aided by one who 
at first came secretly to the Lord under cover 
of night, but now feared not to bring his 
princely offering! of myrrh and aloes openly and in the 
light of day, the faithful disciple solemnly 
performs every rite of honoring sepulture. 
Yea, the hands of two members of that very council that 
had condemned the Lord to death, but one at least of 
whom had no part in their crime, are those 
that now tenderly place the Redeemer’s body 
in the new rock-hewn tomb. And now all is done, and 
the Sabbath well-nigh begun. The King’s Son is laid in 
His sleeping-chamber; the faithful Mary Magdalene and 
the mother of Joses,? who in their deep grief had remained 
sitting beside the tomb, now return to the 
city to buy spices and ointments, and make 
preparations for doing more completely what 
had now necessarily been done in haste; the great stone 
is rolled against the opening of the tomb;* the two pious 


Luke xxii, 33. 


John xix. 38. 


Luke xxiii. 51. 


Matt. xxvii. 61. 
Luke xxiii. 56. 


1 This, we learn from St. John, was of the weight of one hundred pounds (ch. 
xix. 39), and did indeed display what Chrysostom rightly calls the μεγαλοψυ- 
χίαν τὴν ἐν τοῖς χρήμασι (in Matt. Hom. Lxxxvitt.) of the faithful and true- 
hearted ruler. The myrrh and aloes were probably mixed, and in the form of a 
coarse powder freely sprinkled between the 63é6via with which the body was 
swathed. See John xix.40. For further details see Friedlieb, Archdol. § 50, p. 
171 sq., and Winer, RWB. Art. “ Leichen,” Vol. ii. p. 15. 

2 The reading is somewhat doubtful (Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischend., ἢ Ἴω- 
o7nTos —apparently rightly), though the person designated is not, Ἰωσῆτος 
being only the Greek form of the more familiar Ἰωσῆ. Wieseler (Chron. Synops. 
Ῥ. 426, note) adopts the reading of the Alexandrian MS., n ἸΙωσήφ, and considers 
the Mary here mentioned to have been the daughter of the honorable man who 
bore that name; this, however, has been rightly judged by recent critics to be 
open to objections, which, combined with the small amount of external evidence 
on which the reading rests, are decisive against it. See Meyer, wb. Mark, p. 180 
(ed. 3). With regard to the two women, it would seem from Matt. xxvii. 61 
(καϑήμεναι ἀπέναντι τοῦ τάφου), compared with Mark xv. 47, Luke xxiii. 
55, that at present they took but little part, but sat by, stupefied with grief, while 
the two rulers (John xix. 40, ἔλαβον, ἔδησαν) performed the principal rites of 
sepulture. 

3 The tombs were then probably, as now, either (a) with steps and a descent in 
a perpendicular direction, or (δ) in the face of the rock, and with an entry ina 
sloping or horizontal direction. The tomb of our Lord would seem to have been 
of the latter description; tombs of the former kind are perhaps alluded to Luke 


328 THE LAST PASSOVER. Lror. VII. 


rulers turn their steps to Jerusalem, and all rest on the 
Sabbath-day, “according to the command- 
ment.” 

With the first Evangelist’s notice of the request pre- 
ferred by the members of the Sanhedrin that the sepulchre 
should be guarded, and with a brief mention 
of the procurator’s curtly expressed permis- 
sion, the sealing of the stone, and the setting 
of the watch,’ this lengthened portion of the inspired 
narrative now comes to its close. 

And here our Lecture shall at once conclude. Practical 
reflections on events so numerous, and of 
such momentous interest, would far exceed 
the limits that must be prescribed to this work,’ and would 
necessarily involve recapitulations which, in a narrative so 
simple and continuous as that here given by the Evangel- 
ists, might reasonably be judged to a certain degree unne- 
cessary and undesirable. Into such varied reflections, then, 
it may not now be wholly suitable to enter. Yet let us at 
least bear one truth which this portion of our subject has 
presented to us, practically, vitally, and savingly, in mind, 
—even the everlasting truth, that our sins have been 
atoned for, that they have been borne by our Lord on His 


Luke xxiii. 56. 


Matt. xxvii. 64. 
Ver. 66. 


Conclusion. 


xi.44. The stone which was rolled against the opening and in this case appears to 
have completely filled it up (comp. John xx. 1, ἐκ τοῦ μνημείου, and see Meyer, 
in loc.) was technically termed Golal (Shs; see Sepp, Leben Chr. vi. 77, Vol. 
iii. p. 608), and was usually of considerable size (Mark xvi. 4). See Pearson, 
Creed, Art. 1v. Vol. ii. p. 187 sq. (ed. Burton), and on the subject generally, the 
special work of Nicolai in Ugolini, Thesaur. Vol. xxxiii., and Winer, kWB. 
Art. Graber,” Vol. i. p. 448 sq. 

1 See Matt. xxvii. 65, where the verb ἔχετε would seem more naturally imper- 
ative than indicative, as in the latter case the reference could only be to sucha 
κουστωδία as the chief priests had at their disposal, ὁ. e., temple guards, whereas 
the actual watchers were Roman soldiers. See Matt. xxviii. 14. In the former 
case permission is given in the form of a brusquely expressed command, means 
being supplied for it to be carried out. 

2 It may again be noticed (see above, p. 51, note 1) that both this and the follow- 
ing Lecture were not preached, the number required, owing to recent changes, 
being only six. The omission of practical comments or hortatory application 
will thus seem perhaps not only natural but desirable, as such addresses, if 
merely of a general character, and not made to a special audience, can rarely 
be satisfactory. 


Lect. ὙΠ. THE LAST PASSOVER. 329 


cross, and that by His stripes we have been healed. God 
grant that this belief of our fathers and our 
forefathers, and of the holiest and the wisest 
of every age in the Church of Christ, may not at length 
become modified and diluted. Let words of controversy 
here appear not. Let no terms of party strife appear at 
the close of a narrative of a love boundless as the universe, 
and of a sacrifice of which the sweet-smell- 
ing savor has pervaded every realm of be- 
ing,—let none such meet the eye of the reader of these 
concluding lines. Yet let the prayer be offered with all 
lowliness and humility that these weak words may have 
been permitted to strengthen belief in the Atonement, to 
convince the fair and candid reader of the written Word 
that here there is something more than the perfection of 
a self-denial, something more than a great moral spectacle 
at which we may gaze in a perplexed wonder, but of which 
the benefits to us are but indirect, the realities but exem- 
plary. 

O,no,no! That blood, which, as it were, we have be- 
held falling drop by drop on Golgotha, fell not thus fruit- 
lessly to the earth. Those curtains of darkness shrouded 
something more than the manifestation of a moral sublim-_ 
ity. That cry of agony and desolation told of something 
more than a sense of merely personal suffering, or the 
closing exhaustions of a distressed humanity. The very 
outward circumstances of the harrowing history raise 
their voices against such a bleak and cheerless theosophy. 
The very details of the varied scenes of agony and woe 
plead meekly, yet persuasively, against such an estimate of 
the sufferings of an Incarnate God. O, may deeper med- 
itation on these things bring conviction! May those who 
yet believe in the perfections of their humanity, and doubt 
the efficacies of their Redeemer’s blood, unlearn that joy- 
less creed. May the speculators here cease to speculate ; 
may the casuist learn to adore. Yea, to us all, may fuller 
measures of faith and of saving assurance yet be minis- 

28* 


1 Pet. i. 24. 


Eph. v. 2. 


990 THE LAST PASSOVER. Lect. VII. 


tered, that with heart and mind and soul and spirit we 
may verily and indeed believe that “Christ was once 
offered to bear the sins of many,” and that, 
oan gee even as the beloved Apostle has said, “He 
is the propitiation for our sins, and not for 

ours only, but for the sins of the whole world.” 


LECTURE VIII. 


THE FORTY DAYS. 


80 TO MY BRETHREN, AND SAY UNTO THEM, I ASCEND UNTO MY FATHER, 
AND YOUR FATHER; AND TO MY GOD, AND YOUR GoD. — δέ. John. xx. 17. 


THE portion of the inspired narrative at which we have 
now arrived is the shortest, but by no means 
the least important of the divisions into a eae 
which it has appeared convenient to separate 
the Gospel history. In some respects, indeed, it may be 
rightly termed the most important, as containing the ac- 
count of that which was in fact the foundation of all apos- 
tolical preaching, and which, when alluding to the subject 
generally, St. Paul has not scrupled to speak 
of as that which alone gives a reality to our 
faith here and to our hope of what shall be hereafter.’ 
The resurrection of Jesus Christ, of Him whom Joseph 
and Nicodemus laid in the new rock-hewn tomb, is no less 
the solemn guarantee to us of the truth of that in which 
we have believed, than it is also the holy pledge to us of 
our own future victory over death and corruption. 

On the history of such an adorable manifes- ——pyemminat ques- 
tation of the divine power and majesty of jee oie ne 
Him who saved us, and who has thus given *orv. 
an infallible proof that He had as much the power’ to take 


1 Cor. xv. 14. 


1 The nature of the apostle’s argument, and the reciprocal inferences, viz., 
“that Christ’s resurrection from the dead is the necessary cause of our resurrec- 
tion,” and “that our future resurrection necessarily infers Christ’s resurrection 
from the dead,” so that ‘‘ the denial or doubt of our resurrection infers a doubt 
or denial of His resurrection,” are well discussed by the learned Jackson, in 
his valuable Commentaries on the Creed, x1. 16.1, Vol. x. p. 807 sq. (Oxford, 
1844). 

2 The catholic doctrine on the agency by which Christ was raised from the 


Son THE FORTY DAYS. Lecr. VIL. 


His life again as He had the mercy to lay it down — on 
such a history, meet indeed will it be for us 
to dwell with thoughtfulness, precision, and 
care. Meet indeed will it be to strive to bring into one 
every ray of divine truth, as vouchsafed to us in this por- 
tion of the Evangelical history, to miss’ no hint, to over- 
look no inference whereby our faith in our risen and as- 
cended Lord may become more real and more vital, and 
our conviction of our own resurrection more assured and 
more complete." 

And not of our own resurrection only, but even of what 
lies beyond. Yea, hints there are of partial answers not 
only to the question “ How are the dead raised?” but even 
to that further and more special question, “With what 
body do they come?” which so perplexed the doubters of 
Corinth, and remains even to this day such a subject of 
controversy and debate. Into such questions the general 
character of my present undertaking will wholly preclude 
me from entering, either formally or at length; nay, in a 
professed recital of events it will scarcely be convenient to 
call away the attention of the reader from a simple con- 
sideration of facts to their probable use as bases for 
speculative meditation; still it will not be unsuitable or 


John x. 18. 


dead is nowhere better or more clearly stated than by Bp. Pearson, who, while 
stating the general truth ‘that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost raised Christ 
from the dead,” shows also that the special truth “that the Lord raised Him- 
self” is distinct and irrefragable, as resting on our Lord’s own words (John ii. 
22), and the way in which those words were understood by the apostles: ‘ If, 
upon the resurrection of Christ, the apostles believed those words of Christ, 
‘Destroy this temple, and I will raise it up again,’ then did they believe that 
Christ raised Himself; for in those words there is a person mentioned which 
raised Christ, and no other person mentioned but Himself.” — Exposition of the 
Creed, Art. V. Vol. i. p. 803 (ed. Burton). 

1 It has been well said by Dr. Thomas Jackson, that ‘“‘every man is bound to 
believe that all true believers of Christ’s resurrection from the dead shall be 
undoubted partakers of that endless and immortal glory into which Christ hath 
been raised. But no man is bound to believe his own resurrection, in particular, 
into such glory any further, or upon more certain terms, than he can (upon just 
and deliberate examination) find that himself doth steadfastly believe this fun- 
damental article of Christ’s resurrection from the dead.’ — Commentaries on the 
Creed, x1. 16. 11, Vol. x. p. 826 sq., where there is also a short but excellent prac- 
tical application of the doctrine. 


Lect. VII. THE FORTY DAYS. 333 


inappropriate to bestow such a careful consideration on 
those parts of the subject which need it on their own 
account, as will also incidentally prove suggestive of fruit- 
ful thoughts in reference to our future state, our hopes and 
our expectations. The remembrance that our risen Lord 
was the veritable first-fruits of them that slept, that as He 
rose we shall rise, will always press upon us the thought 
that the nature of His resurrection-body’ must involve 
something, at any rate, remotely analogous to the nature 
of the future bodies of His glorified servants, and must 
insensibly lead us to dwell with thoughtful care upon all 
the circumstances and details relating to those appearances 
which we are now about to recount. Let us, then, address 
ourselves to this important portion of the inspired history 
with all earnestness and sobriety. Never was there a time 
when meditation on the history of the risen yet not ascen- 


1 This difficult subject will not be formally discussed in the text, but in every 
case comments will be made upon the nature of those appearances which seem 
to require more special consideration. From these, and, above all, from a sound 
exegetical discussion of the passages in question, the student will perhaps be 
enabled to arrive at some opinion upon a very important subject. Meanwhile, 
without anticipating what will be best considered separately and in detail, it may 
be well to notice that there have been, roughly speaking, three opinions on the 
subject: (a) that our Lord’s body was the same natural body of flesh and blood 
that had been crucified and Jaid in the tomb; (6) that it was wholly changed at 
the resurrection, and became simply an ethereal body, something between 
matter and spirit (ὡσπερεὶ ἐν wedopiw τινὶ τῆς παχύτητος THs πρὸ TOD πάϑους 
σώματος καὶ τοῦ γυμνὴν τοιούτου σώματος φαίηεσϑαι Yux}v—Origen, contr. 
Cels. 11. 62); (c) that it was the same as before, but endued with new powers, prop- 
erties, and attributes. Of these views (a) is open to very serious objections, aris- 
ing from the many passages which seem clearly to imply either (1) that there was 
a change in the outward appearance of our Lord’s body, or (2) that its appear- 
ances and disappearances involved something supernatural. Again, (b) seems 
plainly irreconcilable with our Lord’s own declaration (Luke xxiv. 89), and 
with the fact that His holy body was touched, handled, and proved experiment- 
ally to be real. Between these two extremes (c) seems soberly to meditate, and 
is the opinion maintained by Irenzus, Tertullian, Hilary, Augustine (but not 
exclusively), and other sound writers of the early church. As will be seen from 
what follows, it appears best to reconcile all apparent differences in the accounts 
of the Lord’s appearances, and, to say the very least, deserves the student’s 
most thoughtful consideration. For a very complete article on this subject, see 
the Bibliotheca Sacra for 1845, Vol. ii. p. 292. The writer (Dr. Robinson) advo- 
cates (a), but supplies much interesting matter and many useful quotations in 
reference to the other opinions. 


334 THE FORTY DAYS. Lecr. VII. 


ded Lord were more likely to be useful than now; never 
was there an age when it was more necessary to set forth 
events that not only imply but practically prove the resur- 
rection of the body,’ and that not only suggest but confirm 
that teaching of the Church in reference to the future state 
which it is the obvious tendency of the speculations of our 
own times to explain away, to modify, or to deny, 

Ere, however, we proceed to the regular and orderly 
Characteristics o recital of the events of this portion of the 
the present portion evangelical history, let us pause for a moment 
of the narrative. : 

to make a few brief comments on the general 
character of the different records of the inspired narrators. 

With regard to the number of those holy records, the 

Nunter of me Seme remarks that were made at the begin- 
accounts. ning of the last Lecture may here be repeated, 
pate as equally applicable to the portion of the 
sacred history now before us. Events of such a moment- 
ous nature as those which followed our Lord’s death and 
burial were not to be told by one, but by all. If all relate 
how the holy body of the Lord was laid in the tomb, surely 
all shall relate how on the third morning the tomb was 
found empty, and how angelical witnesses® declared that 
the Lord had risen. If all relate how holy women were 
spectators of their Redeemer’s suffering, shall not all relate 


1 Some of the more popular quasi scientific objections to the received doctrine 
of the resurrection of the body are noticed, discussed, and fairly answered, in 
an article by Prof. Goodwin in the Bibliotheca Sacra for 1852, Vol. ix. p.1 sq. 
For earlier objections, see Jackson, Creed, x1. 15, Vol. x. p. 288 sq. 

2 Information is so often sought for in vain on the subject of the general 
teaching of the best writers of the early Church on the Doctrine of the Last 
Things (Eschatology, as it is now called), that we may pause to refer the student 
to a learned volume now nearly forgotten, Burnet, de Statu Mortuorum et Re- 
surgentium, London, 1728. 

8 The first point, the fact that the tomb was empty, and the body not there, is 
very distinctly put forward by all the four Evangelists. Compare Matt. xxviii. 
6, Mark xvi. 6, Luke xxiy. 8, John xx. 2, 6,7. The second point, the angelical 
testimony, is, strictly considered, only specified by the first three Evangelists: 
St. John relates the appearance of two angels, and their address to Mary Mag- 
dalene (ch. xx. 18), but the testimony which they deliver to the women (Matt. 
xXviii. 6, Mark xvi. 6, Luke xxiv. 6) is, in the case of Mary Magdalene, prac- 
tically delivered by the Lord Himself. 


*® 


Lect. VIIL. THE FORTY DAYS. 335 


how some at least of this ministering company’ were first 
to hear the glad tidings of His victory over the grave, and 
to proclaim it to His doubting Apostles? If all, as we 
have seen in the last Lecture, have so minutely described 
the various scenes of the Passion, can we wonder that all 
were moved to record some of the more striking scenes of 
the great forty days that followed, and that afforded to the 
disciples the visible proofs of the Lord’s resurrection?? It 
could not indeed be otherwise. These things must be told 
by all, though, as in other portions of the Gospel history, 
all have not been moved to specify exactly the same inci- 
dents. 

Nay, when we come to consider the pre- ὠ meir_pecutiari- 
cise nature and character of the four holy “*“¢*7"™"* 
records we meet with some striking and instructive differ- 
ences The first two Evangelists devote no more than 


1 The women mentioned as having visited the sepulchre are not the same even 
in the case of the first three Evangelists. This, however, can cause no real diffi- 
culty, as the fact that St. Matthew only mentions Mary Magdalene and “the 
other Mary” (the wife of Clopas or Alpheus, and sister of the Virgin; see above, 
p. 819, n. 2) in no way implies that others were not with them. From St. Mark 
(ch. xvi. 1) we learn that Salome was also present; and from St. Luke (ch. xxiv. 
1 compared with ch. xxiii. 49 and 55) we should naturally draw the same infer- 
ence; when, however, the Evangelist pauses a little later to specify by name, 
Salome is not mentioned but Joanna (ch. xxiv. 10), the ai λοιπαὶ σὺν αὐταῖς 
including Salome, and, as it would appear, others not named by any of the 
Evangelists. The attempt of Greswell (Dissert. xLii1. Vol. iii. p. 264 sq.) to 
prove that there were two parties of women, the one the party of Salome, and 
the other the party of Joanna, is very artificial, and really does but little to 
remove the difficulties which seem to have given rise to the hypothesis. 

2 So rightly Augustine: ‘‘ Ergo ad eorum [discipulorum] confirmationem dig- 
natus est post resurrectionem vivere cum illis quadraginta diebus integris, ab 
ipso die passionis suz usque in hodiernum diem [fest. Ascensionis], intrans et 
exiens, manducans et bibens, sicut dicit Scriptura [Act. i. 3, 4], confirmans hoc 
redditum esse oculis eorum post resurrectionem, quod ablatum erat per crucem.” 
Serm. CCLXIV. Vol. v. p. 1212 (ed. Migné). The reasons suggested by the same 
author (p. 1211, 1216) why the interval was exactly forty days, are ingenious, but 
scarcely satisfactory. 

3 These differences, when studiously collected and paraded out (see De Wette, 
Erkl. des Evang. Matt. p. 306, ed. 8), at first seem very startling and irreconcil- 
able. They cease, however, at once to appear so when we only pause to observe 
the brevity of the sacred writers, and remember that an additional knowledge 
of perhaps no more than two or three particulars would enable us at once to 
reconcile all that seems discordant. See a good article by Robinson in the Bib- 
liotheca Sacra for 1845, Vol. ii. p. 102. At the end (p. 189) will be found a useful 


336 THE FORTY DAYS. Lecr. VIII. 


twenty verses each to the history of this period, and are 
but brief in their notices of the appearances of the risen 
Lord, though explicit as to the circumstances under which 
the first witnesses of the resurrection were enabled to 
give their testimony. The third and fourth Evangelists, 
on the other hand, have each given a record nearly three 
times as long, and have each related with great exactness 
the circumstances of selected instances of the Redeemer’s 
manifestation of Himself, wherein He more especially 
vouchsafed to show that He had raised again the same 
body that had been laid in Joseph’s sepulchre; that it was 
indeed He Himself, their very own adorable 
Master and Lord. And yet both in this and 
other differences we can hardly fail to be struck by the 
divine harmony that pervades the whole, and must again 
be led to recognize in this portion of the history, with all 
its seeming discrepancies, what we have so often already 
observed in earlier portions, how strikingly the Evangel- 
ical accounts illustrate by their differences, and how the 
very omissions in one or two of the sacred records will 
sometimes be found to place even in a clearer light, and to 
reflect a fuller and truer significance on what others have 
been moved to record. If, for example, two Evangelists 
would thus appear to dwell simply upon the fact of the 
Resurrection, the other two, we observe, were specially 
guided to set forth the proofs of its true nature, its reality, 
and its certainty.1 If, again, we might be induced to 
think from the words of the first and second Evangelists 
that Galilee was to be more especially the land blessed by 
the appearances of the risen Saviour, the two others direct 


Luke xxiv. 89. 


selected list of treatises both on the subject of the Resurrection and on the prin- 
cipal events connected therewith. 

1 It can hardly escape the notice of the observant reader that while the first 
and second Evangelists dwell mainly on the fact that the Lord was risen from 
the dead, the third and fourth Evangelists dwell most upon the reality of the 
body that was raised (Luke xxiv. 80, 89, 41 sq.; comp. Acts i. 8) and its identity 
with that which was crucified. Compare John xx. 20,27. The,so to speak, 
crucial] test of eating is alone referred to by these Evangelists — being definitely 
specified, Luke xxiy. 48, and perhaps implied, John xxi. 12 sq. 


Lect. VIII. THE FORTY DAYS. 337 


our thoughts more to Judea, and yet one of these joins the 
testimony of an eye-witness to that of the first two by his 
explicit and most undoubtedly genuine’ account of the 
Lord’s appearance at the most favored scene |. 
of His Galilean ministry.2 If, lastly, two Luke exiv. a. 
only of the four witnesses have been moved nahi 

to record the Ascension, the other two have taught us by 
their very silence, in the first place, to view that last event 
of the Gospel history in its true light, as so entirely the 
necessary and natural sequel of what preceded, that Apos- 
tles could leave it unrecorded; and, in the second place, 
thus to realize more deeply the true mystery of the Resur- 
rection, to see and to feel how it included and involved all 


1 On this point it is not necessary to dwell at length. There is not a vestige of 
external evidence to lead us to think that the early Church entertained the 
slightest doubt of John xxi. being written by the Apostle St. John. Internal 
evidence has nothing else whatever to rest upon than the two seeming conclu- 
sions, ch. xx. 80sq., and ch. xxi. 24 sq.; it being now admitted by the best recent 
critics of the Apostle’s language (see esp. Meyer, Komment. p. 510) that ch. xxi. 
came from his hand. On such evidence, or rather absence of evidence, we shall, 
probably, be slow to believe, with Wieseler (comp. Chron. Synops. p. 418, and his 
special dissertation on the subject), that John xxi. was written by John the 
Presbyter. 

2 Few points have been dwelt upon more studiously by sceptical and semi- 
sceptical writers than the assumed fact that St. Matthew and St. Mark (ch. xvi. 
9—20 being presupposed to be not genuine) regard Galilee as the scene of the 
Lord’s appearances (Matt. xxviii. 7, 10, 16 sq.; Mark xvi. 7), while St. Luke and 
St. John (ch. xxi. is commonly assumed by such writers to be not genuine) place 
them in Judea. Compare Wieseler, Chron. Synops. p. 421 sq. Now, in the first 
place, such a statement rests upon two assumptions, the first of which is open to 
some doubt (see above, p. 40, note 1), and the second of which is inconsistent 
with evidence (see the preceding note); and in the second place, even if we con- 
cede these two assumptions, what more can be fairly said than this, —that St. 
Matthew relates two appearances only, one confessedly in Galilee (ch. xxviii. 
16), but one most certainly in Juda (ch. xxviii. 9, 10); that St. Mark’s Gospel is 
according to assumption imperfect, and cannot be pleaded for either side; that 
St. Luke and St. Joh (ch. xx.) have recorded special appearances of a highly 
important nature in reference to the object which they seem mainly to have had 
in view (see p. 836, note 1), and that these, from the nature of the case, would be 
very soon after the Resurrection, and by consequence in Judwa? Even then 
with the two concessions above alluded to our opponents cannot be regarded as 
having dome much to impair the harmony of the Evangelical records, or to 
establish the favorite theory of different “traditions” of the Resurrection. 
Compare Meyer, Komment. wb. Matt. p. 553, where this untenable hypothesis is 
put forward and defended. 


29 


338 THE FORTY DAYS. Lect. VIU- 


that followed, and how it truly was that one great victory 
over sin and death that made every minor conquest over 
earthly relations a matter of certain and inevitable se- 
quence.’ If, on the one hand, St. Luke has told us how 
the Lord “was earried up Into heaven,” and 
St. Mark? has followed Him with the eye of 
faith even up to the moment of His session at the right 
hand of God, no less, on the other, is our text 
a most significant testimony from the beloved 
Apostle, that, when the Lord arose, that ascension had vir- 
tually commenced, that He rose to ascend, and that in the 
early dawning of that Easter morn the Lord’s return to 
the throne of Omnipotence was already begun®’—“I as- 
cend to my Father and your Father, and to 
my God and your God.” 
We might extend these observations, but enough, per- 
haps, has been said to indicate the general 
wesumptioneftte character of this portion of the inspired nar- 
rative, and the general nature of the difficul- 
ties we may expect to meet with. We must now turn to 


Luke xxiv. δὶ. 


Mark xvi. 19. 


Ch. xx. 17. 


1 It may be remarked how comparatively little the ascension of our Lord is 
dwelt upon by the early writers, compared with their references to the resurrec- 
tion, and it may also be observed that the special festival, though undoubtedly 
of great antiquity (see Augustine, Zpist. ad Januar. Liv. Vol. ii. p. 200, ed. 
Migné), and certainly regarded in the fourth century as one of the great festi- 
vals (Const. Apost. v111. 83), is still not alluded to by any of the earliest writers, 
Justin Martyr, Irenzus, Clement of Alexandria, and Cyprian, and is not in- 
cluded in the list of festivals enumerated by Origen (contr. Cels. vii. 21, 22). 
See Riddle, Christian Antiq. Ὁ. 678. The preaching of the apostles was preémi- 
nently the resurrection of Christ (Acts ii. 31, iv. 33 al.), as that which included in 
it everything besides; it was from this that the early Church derived all its full- 
est grounds of assurance. Comp. Clem. Rom. £pist. ad Cor. cap. 42. 

2 For a brief discussion of the arguments in favor of the genuineness of the 
concluding verses of St. Mark’s Gospel, see above, Lect. Ip. 40, note. 

8 Though the use of the present ἀναβαίνω John xx. 17) may be regarded as 
ethical, i. e., as indicating what was soon and certainly to take place (see Winer, 
Gram. § 40. 2, p. 287, ed. 6), it seems here more simple to regard it as temporal, — 
as indicating a process which had in fact already begun. The extreme view of 
this text, as indicating that an ascension of our Lord took place on the same 
day that He rose (Kinkel, in Stud. u. Krit. for 1841, translated in Bibliotheca 
Sacra, Vol. i. p. 152 sq.), is, it is needless to say, plainly to be rejected, as incon- 
sistent with Acts i. 3, and numerous other passages in all the four Gospels. 


Lect. VILL. THE FORTY DAYS. 339 


its subject-matter, and to a consideration of the few but 
notable events which mark this concluding part of our 
Redeemer’s history. 

One of the last events in the preceding portion of our 
narrative is that which connects us with the ἀρειβεορνονες 
present, and unites the Friday eve with the men to the sepu- 
Kaster morn. This we observe especially in ΞὉ 
the Gospel of the historian Evangelist, who, without any 
break or marked transition, relates to us how the minister- 
ing women of Galilee now come to perform the pious 
work for which they had made preparations on the Friday 
evening. They had bought spices and oint- 
ments ere the Sabbath had commenced, and 
again, as it would seem, after its legal conclu- 
sion on the Saturday evening. Every preparation was thus 
fully made, and it remained only that with the earliest light 
of the coming day they should bear their offering to the 
sepulchre, and tenderly anoint that sacred body! which 
they had seen laid in haste, though with all reverence and 
honor, in the new rock-hewn tomb. It was still dark when 
they set out, and their hearts were as sad and as gloomy 
as the shadows of the night that were still lingering around 
them.’ But the mere needs of the present were what now 


Luke xaiii. 56. 
Hark xvi. 1. 


1 The object is more definitely stated by St. Mark than by St. Matthew. The 
first Evangelist says generally that it was ϑεωρῆσαι τὸν τάφον (ch. xxviii. 1); 
the second specifies more exactly that it was ἵνα ἀλείψωσιν αὐτόν (ch. xvi. 1). 
it will be remembered that when our Lord was interred, spices were only strewn 
between the folds of the swathing bands (John xix. 40; compare p. 327, note 1); 
the object of the women was now to spread over the sacred body the customary 
liquid perfumes. See Greswell, Dissert. xLi11. Vol. iii. p. 260. 

2 Some little difficulty has arisen from the apparently different definitions of 
the time of the visit to the sepulchre, as specified in the four Evangelists, the 
two extremes being, that of St. John, σκοτίας ἔτι οὔσης (ch. xx. 1), and the 
second of St. Mark, ἀνατείλαντος Tov ἡλίου (ch. xvi. 2). Were these the only 
notes of time, we might have been Jed to suppose that the first referred to the 
time of starting, the second of arriving at the sepulchre. As, however, St. 
Mark has another note of time λίαν πρωΐ (ver. 2), and as this is supported by the 
τῇ ἐπιφωσκούσῃ [sc. ἡμέρᾳ] εἰς μίαν σαββάτων of St. Matthew (ch. xxviii. 1) 
and the ὄρϑρου βαϑέως of St. Luke (ch. xxiv. 1), the most natural conclusion is 
that the ἀνατείλ. Tod ἡλίου is not to be referred to the actual phenomenon (Meyer, 
al.) but to be regarded only as a general definition of time. See Robinson, 


340 THE FORTY DAYS. Lect. VIII. 


mainly occupied their thoughts: Who was to roll away 
for them the great stone they had seen but 
two nights before so closely fitted in its ap- 
pointed place?! Where were the strong and zealous 
hands that were to open that door that would lead them 
to their Lord? While thus musing, and as yet, as it would 
seem, at some distance from the sepulchre, lo! the ground 
Matt, evig,9, round them quakes under their feet ;* the 

eres angel of the Lord descends from heaven; the 

heathen watchers at the tomb fall prostrate 

with fear as the glory of that celestial appearance smites 
upon their eyes; the great stone is rolled away from the 
already empty ἐνξολπδιοαο men now may perceive what 
angels know, that THe Lorp 15 risEN. Meanwhile the 
women, who probably were still too distant to see dis- 
tinctly, perhaps pause, bewildered and irresolute, doubtful 


Ver. 3. 


Biblioth. Sacra, Vol. ii. p. 168, where examples are given from the Septuagint 
which dilute the objection arising from the use of the aorist. 

1 This, as has already been suggested (p. 327, note 3), is perhaps to be inferred 
from the ἡρμένον ἐκ τοῦ μνημείου of John xx. 1, the preposition seeming to 
imply that the stone was not only rolled against the door, but fitted into the 
cavity. 

2 It is very difficult to decide whether the women actually beheld the miracu- 
lous circumstances mentioned Matt. xxviii. 1 sq., or not. The definite expres- 
sion, καὶ ἰδοῦ (ver. 2), the address of the angel (ver. 5), and the contrasting ὑμεῖς 
(ver. 5; compare Chrys. in loc.), seem most distinctly in favor of the afirmative, 
while the silence of the other Evangelists, and even St. Matthew’s very indirect 
notice of the impression produced on the women by the wondrous sight, strongly 
suggest the negative. In this difficulty the mediating view of the text, that 
they beheld it partially and at a distance, has been adopted asin some degree 
reconciling the two impressions produced by a consideration of this portion of 
the narrative. The terrified guards would also probably have been unable to 
have wholly suppressed some account of an event (Matt. xxviii. 18) which’ so 
greatly terrified them, and thus, partly from them and partly from the women, 
the occurrence would have become gradually but completely known. 

8 The exact moment when the Lord issued from the tomb is left wholly unde- 
fined. The prevailing view of the early writers is that it preceded the events 
specified by the Evangelist (μετὰ Thy ἀνάστασιν ἦλϑεν ἄγγελος, Chrysost. in 
Matt. xxviii. 1), and that the appearance of the angel and removal of the stone 
were to announce what had already taken place and to demonstrate its reality. 
Comp. Hacket, Serm. v. on Resurr. p. 592 sq. (Lond. 1675). All we can know of 
the circumstances of the holy mystery is to be gathered from John xx 6 sq.; 
from which we may perhaps presume to say that it took place with all the 
adjuncts of holy order, deliberation, and peace. Comp. Robinson, Bibl. Sacra, 
Vol. ii. p, 166. 


Lecr. VIII. THE FORTY DAYS. 341 


whether to go onward or to return. But all is now again 
the wonted calm of early dawn; the earth has ceased to 
tremble; the strange flashing light has faded away; they 
will yet pursue their way; they will enter the quiet gar- 
den; they will strive to find entrance into the tomb; they 
will do that for which they are come. As they draw nearer, 
they see to their joy that the stone is rolled away, resting 
perhaps on one side of the rocky portal ;1 they take heart 
and press onward; yea, they enter, as St. Luke 
tells us, into the tomb itself, and by the see- 
ing of the eye are assured that the holy body they them- 
selves had beheld securely laid there is now there no 
longer. The tomb is empty; they have searched and have 
not found, and now stand sadly gazing on each other in 
utter bewilderment and perplexity. But one 
there was among them more rapid in the in- 
ferences of her fears, and more prompt in action. Ere, as 
it would seem, the rest had entered the sepulchre and com- 
menced their search, Mary Magdalene was already on her 
way to Jerusalem.2? She who owed to Him 
that died on Golgotha a freedom from a state 
worse than death, and who loved even as she had been 


Ch. xxiv. 8. 


Ver. 4. 


Luke viii. 2. 


1 Some little difficulty has been felt in the clause ἦν yap μέγας σφόδρα (Mark 
xvi. 4), as it might seem rather to give a reason why the women meditated how 
the stone should be removed, than why they perceive that what they mused on 
had happened. If, however, we make the assumption in the text, or some simi- 
lar one, as to the position of the stone, all seems clear; while the women are yet 
at a little distance they perceive that the stone is not in its place, it being of large 
size, and its changed position readily seen. This harmonizes with the supposition 
that Mary Magdalene went away first, and at once. Compare John xx. 1, 2, 
βλέπει x. τ. A. Τρέχει οὖν k. τ. ., where the οὖν must not be left unnoticed. 

2 The common supposition is that Mary ran first to the sepulchre, without 
waiting for the rest; to this, however, there are objections arising from the fact 
that St. Matthew specifies that there was at least another with her when she 
went (ch. xxviii. 1), and that St. Luke implies that she acted in some degree of 
concert with the other women. Compare Wieseler, Chron. Synops. p. 430, and 
see below, p. 342, note 2. The primary difficulty that St. John names no other 
woman than Mary, must be cut, if not solved, by the reasonable assertion that 
St. John was moved to notice her case particularly, and by the fair principle of 
Le Clerc, which so often claims our recognition in this part of the inspired nar- 
rative, — “‘ qui plura narrat, pauciora complectitur; qui pauciora memorat, plura 
non negat.’? — Harmon. p. 525, Can. XIt. fin. (cited by Robinson). 


29* 


942 THE FORTY DAYS. Lecr. VII. 


blessed, no sooner beholds the stone removed from the 
doorway of her Lord’s resting-place than she sees, or seems 
to see, all. She whose whole present thought was only 
how she might do honor to her Master’s body, how best 
strew the spices around the holy body, how most tenderly 
spread the ointment on the sacred temples of the sleeping 
head, now at a glance perceives that others have been 
before her; she sees it, and at once fears the worst, — her 
Lord’s sepulchre violated, His holy body borne away to 
some dishonored grave,! or exposed to shame and indigni- 
ties which it was fearful even to think of. Help and coun- 
sel must at once be sought, and that of a more effectual 
kind than weak women could provide. Perhaps, with a 
few hasty words to those around,’ she runs 
with all speed to the Lord’s most chosen fol- 
lowers, Peter and John, and in artless language, which 
incidentally shows that she had not been the sole visitant 
of the tomb,’ at once tells them the mournful tidings, — 
“ They have taken away the Lord out of the 
sepulchre, and we know not where they have 
laid Him.” The two Apostles promptly attend to the 


John xx. 2. 


Ver. 2. 


1 See above, p. 826, note 3. 

2 This supposition, though not positively required by any of the succeeding 
incidents, is still hazarded, as serving to indicate how it might have happened 
that the women did not meet St. Peter as he was coming up to the sepulchre. 
Knowing that one of their party had gone to him, the women possibly went off 
in different directions to the abodes of the other Apostles. Though they were 
all assembled together in the evening (Luke xxiv. 36, John xx. 19), it does not 
follow that they were now all occupying acommon abode. Comp. Griesbach, 
Opusc. Acad. Vol. ii. p. 248. If further conjectures are worth making, it does 
seem wholly improbable that St. Peter might have been now in the abode that 
contained St. John and the Virgin (John xix. 27). The psychological truth in 
Mary’s running for help to men is noticed by Luthardt, Johann. Evang. Part 11. 
p. 4385. It is, however, quite as useful in illustrating the reason why Mary did 
not remain with those unable to help, as why (on Luthardt’s hypothesis) she did 
not run back to them. 

8 This deduction from the plural οἴδαμεν (John xx. 8) is objected to by Meyer 
(in loc.), who urges the οἶδα (ver. 18) as fully counterbalancing the plural in the 
present case. This does not seem satisfactory. The first statement was made 
under different feelings to the second; now she had but lately left others, and 
speaks under the natural consciousness of the fact; afterwards she feels left 
alone in her sorrow, and speaks accordingly. See below, p. 346, note 2. 


Lect. VIII. THE FORTY DAYS. 343 


message and hasten to the sepulchre, followed, as it would 
seem, by her who brought the tidings, and 
who, it appears from the context, must have 
arrived there not long afterwards. 
Ere, however, the two Apostles had reached the tomb, 
other messengers, filled indeed with an awe 
aks Th 
and amazement that sealed their lips to every ογ the angels to the 
one they met,! but filled also with a deep wey °°? 
feeling of holy joy that quickened their steps τι, smur δ, 
to the city, were now seeking out the rest of 
the eleven. Shortly after Mary Magdalene had left the 
other ministering women, and while, as it would seem, they 
were standing bewildered in the tomb, two 
; Luke xxiv. 4. 
or, as some of these perturbed beholders xz, 
might have specified,’ one of the heavenly | Mart | ga, 
ε i comp. i 
host, announce to them that the Lord is risen, ὅ. 
and bid them with all speed convey the tid- 
ings to the Apostles, and tell them that the 
risen Shepherd goeth before His flock® Be paige 
Galilee, even as He had solemnly promised = &. aewiti. 8. 
. . Mark xvi. 10. 
three days before on the eve of His passion. 


The message, we know, was speedily delivered ; the weep- 


Ver. 3. 
Ver. 11. 


Matt. xxviii. 7. 


Ver.7. Mark xvi. 


1 It seems unreasonable in Meyer (on Mark xvi. 8) and others to press the 
οὐδενὶ οὐδὲν εἶπον of the second Evangelist, as implying that the women did 
not obey the angel’s command, and that it was only afterwards that they men- 
tioned it. Surely it is reasonable on psychological grounds (to borrow a favor- 
ite mode of argument in modern writers) to think that the women would not, 
individually, much less collectively, disobey a command of such a kind, and 
uttered by such a speaker. Fear sealed their lips to chance-met passers to and 
fro, but joy (Matt. xxviii. 8) opened them freely enough to the Apostles. 

2 The question of the number of the angels present at the sepulchre possibly 
admits of some sort of explanation similar to those already adopted in not 
unlike cases (p. 178, note 2; p. 251, note 1), and founded on the assumption that 
one was the chief speaker, and that to him attention was particularly directed. 
It is, however, perhaps more probable that in the present case the difference is 
to be referred to the special excitement of the time, and the perturbed state of 
the observers (Luke xxiy. 5). Compare Stier, Disc. of our Lord, Vol. viii. Ρ. 53 
(Clark). 

3 The term προάγει (Matt. xxviii. 7, Mark xvi. 7) is rightly explained by Stier 
and others as indicating, not a mere precedence in reference to the time of 
going, but as marking the attitude of the risen Lord to His now partly scattered 
flock, Observe the connection in Matt, xxyi. 81 sq., and Mark xiv. 27 sq. 


344 THE FORTY DAYS. Lect. VIIL. 


ing and desolate Apostles! were sought out and told the 
cheering tidings, but their sorrow clouded their faith; the 
words of the excited messengers seemed foolishness unto 
them, and they believed them not. Sad- 
dened, perhaps, and grieved that they could 
not persuade those to whom they were sent, yet strong 
in a faith that was soon to receive its exceeding great 
reward, the women appear to have turned backward again? 
toward the one spot in the world on which their thoughts 
now were fixed — their Master’s tomb. 
Let us, however, turn back for a moment to Mary 
Magdalene and the two Apostles. They 
at he uo Apostles, were now all three at the tomb. St. John 
had reached it first, but with the feelings 
of a holy awe had not presumed to enter his Master’s 
tomb, though he had seen enough to feel 


Luke xxiv. 11. 


ciao half convinced that Mary’s tidings were 
er. . . 
a true. St. Peter follows, and with charac- 


teristic promptness enters the tomb, and 
steadily surveys® its state, and the position of the grave- 


1 The graphic comment on the state of the Apostles when Mary Magdalene 
brought her message ἀπήγγειλεν τοῖς μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ γενομένοις, πενδ  οῦσιν 
καὶ κλαίουσιν (Mark xvi. 10), seems justly to outweigh all the petty excep- 
tions that have been taken by Meyer and others to some expressions in this verse 
(ἐκείνη, used without emphasis; πορευϑεῖσα, τοῖς μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ γενομένοις, instead 
of τοῖς μαϑηταῖς αὐτοῦ) which are urged as foreign to St. Mark’s style. If the 
hypothesis already advanced (p. 40, note 1) be accepted, viz., that St. Mark 
added this portion at alater period, we only here meet exactly with what we 
might have expected, identity in leading characteristics, change in details of 
language. ; 

2 It seems reasonable to suppose that the women would return to the sepulchre. 
They left it in great precipitation (ἔφυγον, Mark xvi. 8), and would naturally go 
back again, if not for the lower purpose of fetching what they might have left 
there, yet for the higher one of gaining some further knowledge of a mystery 
which even Apostles refused to believe. Compare, thus far, Wieseler, Chron. 
Synops. p. 425 sq. 

3 The verb ϑεωρεῖν, though frequently used by St. John (above twenty times), 
seems in the present case (Sewpe? τὰ ὀϑόνια κείμενα, K.T. A. Ch. xx. 6), as indeed 
commonly elsewhere, to mark the steady contemplation (‘‘ipsius animi inten- 
tionem denotat qua quis intuetur quidquam.” Tittm.) with which anything is 
regarded by an interested observer; ἅπαντα κατώπτευσεν ἀκριβῶς, Chrys. See 
the good comments on this word in Tittmann, Synon. Nov. Test. p. 120 sq. The 
remark of Stier is perhaps not wholly fanciful, that the visibility of angels is 


- 


[2] 


Lect. VIII. THE FORTY DAYS. 345 


clothes. What his exact feelings then were we know not, 
though we know those of his brother Apostle who now 
entered into the tomb. He too saw the position of the 
grave-clothes, the swathing-bands by themselves in one 
part of the tomb, the folded napkin in the 
other, every sign of order and none of con- 
fusion,’ and he who had perhaps before believed that the 
tomb was empty, now believes, what a true knowledge of 
the Scriptures might have taught him at first, that the 
Lord is risen.2 Consoled, and elevated in thought and 
hope, the two Apostles turn backward to their own home. 

Meanwhile Mary Magdalene had now returned to the 
tomb, though, as we must conclude from the context, with- 


Ver. 7. 


dependent upon the existing wakefulness or susceptibility of the beholding eye, 
and that thus the investigating Apostles did not see them, while to the rapt and 
longing Mary they became apparent. See Disc. of our Lord, Vol. viii. p. 58, and 
comp. the somewhat similar but over-confidently expressed “ canon”? of Liicke, 
Comment. ub. Joh. Vol. ii. p. 781 (ed. 8). 

1 The position of the grave-clothes is specially noticed as showing clearly that 
there had been no violation of the tomb: “inde patebat, illum qui statum sepul- 
chri mutaverat, quicunque tandem fuerit, nihil festinanter egisse . . . sed studio 
et cum certo consilio lintea corpori detraxisse, et concinno ordine in diversis 
locis reposuisse.”” — Lampe, in loc., cited by Luthardt, p. 486. On the further 
deductions from this passage (ὅτε οὐκ ἦν σπευδόντων οὐδὲ ϑορυβουμένων τὸ 
πρᾶγμα, Chrys.) see above, p. 840, note 8. 

2 The exact meaning of ἐπίστευσεν (John xx. 8) is somewhat doubtful. Are 
we to understand by it merely that the Apostle believed in Mary’s report (‘‘ quod 
dixerat mulier, eum de monumento esse sublatum,” August. in Joann. Tractat. 
CXIX.), or, in accordance with the usual and deeper meaning of the word, that 
he believed in the religious truth, viz., of the resarrection (τῇ ἀναστάσει, ἐπίσ- ᾿ 
Tevoay, Chrys.)? Certainly, as it would seem, the latter. The ground of the 
belief was the position of the grave-clothes, which was inconsistent with the 
supposition of a removal of the body by enemies; ἀπὸ τῆς τῶν ὀδονίων συλλο- 
γῆς ἐννοῦσι τὴν ἀνάστασιν, Cyril: Alex. in Foonn. Vol. iv. p. 1078 (ed. Aubert). 
The supposed difficulty in the yap of the succeeding member seems removed by 
the gloss adopted above in the text. St. John saw and believed (εἶδεν καὶ ἐπίσ- 
Tevoev): but had he known the Scripture he would not have required the evi- 
dence by which he had become convinced. Compare Robinson, Biblioth. Sacr. 
Vol. ii. p. 174. 

3 The expression ἀπῆλϑον πρὸς αὐτοὺς (John xx. 10) seems rightly paraphrased 
by Euthymius, ἀπῆλϑον, ---- πρὸς τὴν ἑαυτῶν καταγωγήν. So, similarly, Luke 
xxiv. 12. The two disciples returned to the places, or perhaps rather place (see 
above, p. 842, note 2), where they were abiding, to meditate upon the amazing 
miracle (compare Luke xxiv. 12); very soon afterwards, as we must infer from 
Luke xxiv. 24, they communicated it to the rest of the Apostles and the other 
brethren, 


940 THE FORTY DAYS. Lecr. VIII. 


out having again met the two Apostles, who would other- 
pe utes wise have cheered her with the hopes they 
yagi themselves were feeling, and imparted to 
her some share of Sik own convictions. 

But she was now standing weeping by the 
tomb, unconsoled and inconsolable; her Lord 
was borne away, and she knew not where he was laid: was 
not that cause suflicient for those bitter tears? Yet she 
will gaze at least into that quiet resting-place that once 
had contained her Lord and Saviour; she will gaze in, 
though she fears to enter. The fourth Evan- 
gelist has told us what she saw, — two angels 
as in attitude of still watching over Him who had but so 
lately lain there." They ask her why she 
weeps. She has but one answer, the same 
artless words she uttered to the two Apostles, varied only 
by a slight change of person, that seems to 
tell of an utter grief and perplexity with 
which she feels herself now left to struggle unsustained 
and alone? Yea, she turns away, as it would 
seem, even from angelic sympathy. But she 
turns to see, perhaps, now standing in some position in 
which immediate recognition was less easy,’ One whom 


John xx. 11. 


John xx. 13. 


Ver. 13. 


Ver. 14. 


1 There seems something more than arbitrary fancy (Meyer) in the idea alluded 
to in the text. The attitude of the angels, thus specially mentioned by the 
Apostle, was so explained by some of the best early commentators (σημαίνοντες 
ὡς οὐκ ἂν ἠδίκησέ τις τὸ ἅγιον σῶμα, Cyril Alex. in loc.), and has been rightly 
so understood by some of the better modern interpreters. " See Luthardt, das 
Johann. Evang. Part τι. p. 488, Stier, Disc. of our Lord, Vol. viii. p. 58 (Clark). 

2 As has been already observed (p. 342, note 3), the present oida (John xx. 18) 
of the solitary mourner is not to be regar "δὴ as simply synonymous with οἴδαμεν 
(ver. 2). Here, as the context shows, the woman is standing alone by the tomb; 
the Apostles have gone away; she feels herself unsupported in her grief, and she 
thus naturally expresses it. Comp. ver. 15, where the first person is similarly 
continued. 

8 Itis not, at first sight, easy to understand why Mary did not at once recognize 
our Lord, as we have no reason for thinking from the context that her eyes were 
specially anion (contrast Luke xxiv. 16), and every reason for rejecting the idea 
of some interpreters that the Lord’s recent sufferings had left His features unrec- 
ognizable. The natural explanation would seem to be this,—that she was so 
absorbed in her sorrow, and so utterly without hope or expectancy of sucha 


Lect. VIII. . THE FORTY DAYS. 347 


she knew not, nay, whose very voice either she did not or 
could not recognize, until her slumbering con- 
sciousness is awakened by hearing her own 
name uttered, and that, as we may presume to think, in 
accents that in a moment revealed all." Amazement, hope, 
belief, conviction, all in their fullest measures, burst, as it 
were, upon her soul. With the one word 
Rabboni, and, as the context leads us to 
think, with some gesture of overwhelming and bewildered 
joy, she turns round as if to satisfy herself, not only by the 
eye and ear, but by the touch of the clasping hand, that it 
was indeed He Himself? no mere heaven-sent form, but 
her Teacher and Deliverer, whose feet she had been per- 
mitted to follow over the hills of Galilee, 
whose power had rescued her, and whose 
redeeming blood she had seen falling on the very ground 
nigh to which she then was standing. Yea, her out- 
stretched hand shall assure her that it is her Lord. But it 


Ver. 14. 


John xx. 16. 


Luke viii. 1, 2. 


blessing, that she speaks to, and perhaps even generally looks at the supposed 
stranger without recognizing Him. Compare the illustrative anecdote in Sher- 
lock’s able tract, The Trial of Witnesses, Vol. v. p. 195 (ed. Hughes). It may be 
also further remarked, that if any knowledge of the exact locality had been 
vouchsafed to us, further explanation would probably be found in the ἐστράφη 
εἰς τὰ ὀπίσω. ver. 14. Into the question of clothing (comp. Stier, Disc. Vol. 
Vili. p. 08, note) it is idle and indeed presumptuous to enter. Whatsoever garl 
our Lord’s wisdom thought fit, that did His power assume. 

1 It seems natural to think that besides the mere utterance of her name there 
was something also in the intonation that so vividly recalled the holy privileges 
of past intercourse and past teaching, that Mary not only at once recognizes her 
Lord, but, by the very title with which she addresses Him, shows how fully she 
reverts to previous relations, and as yet to nothing higher. Contrast John xx. 
28, and compare Luthardt, das Johann. Evang. Part 11. p. 489. The single word 
“ Rabboni,” if properly weighed, will be found to throw considerable light on 
the next verse. Compare Hacket, Serm. viii. on Resurr. p. 619. 

2 The supposition of Lamy, and, more recently, of Meyer, that Mary Magda- 
lene sought to convince herself of the reality of the divine Form that stood be- 
fore her, is apparently reasonable and natural, but when pushed further as the 
sole explanation of the γὰρ of the following clause (‘you need not convince 
yourself by touch, I am not yet.a glorified spirit;”? comp. Kinkel in Biblioth. 
Sacra, Vol. i. p. 168), seems utterly lacking and unsatisfactory. A desire to sat- 
isfy herself was probably in the mind of the speaker, but there were other feel- 
ings, half disclosed in the Rabboni, to which the Lord’s words were more espe- 
cially intended to refer. Compare Andrewes, Serm. Xv. Vol. iii. p. 80 (A.-C. L.). 


348 THE FORTY DAYS. Lecr. VIII. 


must not be; relations now are solemnly changed. That 
holy body is the resurrection body of the ascending Lord; 
the eager touch of a mere earthly love is now more than 
ever unbecoming and unmeet. With mysterious words 
full of holy dignity and majesty, yet at the same time of 
most tenderly implied consolation,' the Lord bids her 
refrain. The time indeed will come when, under higher 
relations, love, eager and demonstrative as that now shown 
to the risen, may hereafter unforbiddenly direct itself to 
the ascended Lord. But that time is not now. Still love 
devoted and true as that displayed by Mary of Magdala 
shall not be left unblessed.? To her is vouchsafed the 
privilege of being the first mortal preacher of the risen 
Lord. From her lips is it that even Apos- 
tles are to learn not only that the resurrec- 
tion is past, but that the ascension is begun, and that He 


John xx. 17. 


1 In the very difficult words Μή μου ἅπτου" κ. τ. A. (John xx. 17) two things 
seem clearly implied: (1) a solemn declaration of changed relations of inter- 
course with the risen Lord, expressed in the prohibitory μή μου ἅπτου; (2) a 
consolatory assurance that what is prohibited now shall (in another form) be 
vouchsafed hereafter. The Greek expositors are thus perfectly right when they 
recognize in the words the holy dignity of the risen Lord (ἀνάγει αὐτῆς τὴν 
διάνοιαν, ὥστε αἰδεσιμώτερον αὐτῷ προσέχειν, Chrys.), which, to use the words 
of Stier, “‘ withdraws sublimely from a too human touch;” but they fail, for 
the most part, in the second member, and either miss or neglect the full force of 
the γάρ. This must certainly be preserved, as involving a consolatory reason for 
the present prohibition (Photius), and as giving the necessary divine fulness to 
these first words of the risen Saviour. The whole meaning, then, may be briefly 
expressed in the following paraphrase: —‘‘ Touch me not (with this touch of the 
past), for I have not yet entered into those relations in which I may truly be 
touched, though it will be with the equally loving but necessarily more reverent 
and spiritual touch of the future.” For further details, see especially the excel- 
lent and exhaustive sermon of Andrewes, Serm. xv. Vol. iii. p. 28 sq.(A.-C. L.), 
Meyer, Komment. iib. Joh. p. 499 sq., Liicke, ib. Vol. ii. p. 783 sq., Stier, Disc. of 
our Lord, Vol. viii. p. 67 sq.; and compare Robinson in Biblioth. Sacr. Vol. 
viii. p. 175. 

2 It seems right to recognize in the ἀναβαίνω (ver. 17) a reference to the ava- 
βέβηκα of the preceding member, and in the δὲ that sort of latent opposition 
(Klotz, Devar. Vol. ii. p. 8362) which seems to imply that the member it intro- 
duces involves contrasts to what precedes;--‘‘I have not yet ascended; but 
delay not, go thy way and deliver the message, that my resurrection has really 
practically commenced.” See above, p. 888, note 8, and compare Andrewes, 
Serm. Vol. iii. 46. 


Luct. VIII. THE FORTY DAYS. 349 


who “is not ashamed to call them? brethren” is now as- 
cending to His Father and to their Father, 
and to His God and their God. 

What exact effect was produced on the minds of the 
Apostles by a message thus clear and cir- 
cumstantial, we cannot fully tell. From the prom) 77 
second Evangelist it would certainly seem ἄρονῆό ἐν Nanys 
clear that no credence was given to Mary’s 
declaration that the Lord was alive again, and that her 
own eyes had seen Him. This, at any rate, 
they did not and could not believe. They 
had but lately, as it would seem, heard strange tidings 
from the women, and they might possibly have come to 
the belief that a part at least of these tidings was true.’ 
But the Lord Himself no eye had seen;* nay, the very 
removal of the body, which might have been admitted 


Heb. ii. 11. 


Mark xvi. 11. 


1 Most commentators have rightly called attention to our Lord’s present use 
of the term ‘“‘ brethren” (John xx. 17) in reference to the Apostles, though they 
differ in their estimate of the exact sentiment it seems intended to convey. The 
most natural view seems that of Euthymins, that it was indirectly to assure the 
disciples that the Lord was still truly man, and still stood, in this respect, on the 
same relations with them as before: ‘‘ He named them brethren, as being him- 
self a man, and their kinsman according to man’s nature.’’— Jn Joann. xx. 17, 
Vol. iii. p. 635. 

2 The exact amount of information of what had taken place which the Apostles 
had up to this time received, and their present state of feeling, can only be gener- 
ally surmised. ΑἹ] we know certainly is that they had received the first tidings 
of the women and regarded them as “1416 tales” (Luke xxiv. 11). It is indeed 
possible that, previous to the arrival of Mary Magdalene, some of them might 
have learnt from St. Peter and St. John, or from those to whom those Apostles 
might have mentioned it, ‘‘that the body was not in the sepulchre”’ (comp. Luke 
xxiv. 23); the probable shortness of time, however, between the departure of 
the two Apostles and the second departure of Mary, and the improbability of 
the supposition that the disciples were already all assembled together (see above, 
Ῥ. 842, note 2), render it natural to think that not much more could be generally 
known that had been communicated by the first women. 

8 Even if we adopt the supposition alluded to in the preceding note, and con- 
ceive the results of the visit of St. Peter and St. John to have been now known 
to the rest of the Apostles, it still seems clear that any account of an actual visi- 
ble appearance of our Lord would have been regarded little less incredible than 
before. The two travellers to Emmaus, though probably starting at a time (see 
below) when more would have been known, speak of the confirmation which 
the report of the women had received, but add the melancholy conviction of the 
disciples generally, αὐτὸν δὲ οὐκ εἶδον, Luke xxiv. 24. 


30 


350 THE FORTY DAYS. Lect. VIII. 


and believed in, served perhaps only to confirm the vague 
feeling that now all trace was forever lost; that the angels 
of which the women had spoken had borne away the holy 
body to some sepulchre unknown as that of 
Moses; and that the dream of any earthly 
union was more than ever impossible and unimaginable. 
The vision of angels they perhaps had now 
= gg ome Inke =v. Deoun partially to believe in," but that their 
Lord had been seen by the excited woman 
that now stood before them, that He had spoken with her, 
and made her the bearer of a message, was a dream and 
a hallucination too wild to deserve even a moment’s . 
attention. 
But they were soon to receive yet further and fuller 
testimony. Hitherto those that had come 
peonince ὦν 00 them could speak only from the seeing 
other _mnisterngd of the eye; others were now to come who 
could plead the evidence of another sense, 
and could tell not only of what their eyes had seen but 
their “hands handled.” Very shortly, perhaps, after Mary 
Magdalene had left the Apostles,? the other ministering 
women, who had brought the first tidings to 
the Apostles, are permitted to meet their 
Lord face to face, yea, and to clasp the holy feet before 


Deut. xxxiv. 6. 


Matt. xxviii. 9. 


1 After the intelligence brought by Mary Magdalene, the Apostles might have 
been led to believe that the tomb really was empty, and, further, that marvellous 
things had been seen (comp. Luke xxiv. 23); but more than this, it seems certain, 
was not believed by any except by St. John. On the slowness of the Apostles 
to believe, see Stier, Disc. of our Lord, Vol. viii. p. 96. The reasons why 
women were the first bearers of the tidings of the resurrection are alluded to 
by Augustine, Serm. xLv. Vol. ν. p. 266, Serm. COxXxxI1. ib. p. 1108 (ed. Migné). 

2 It would seem probable that the women returned with the account of having 
seen the Lord not long after Mary Magdalene had left the Apostles. We have, 
however, no data for fixing even roughly the probable time, the very fact of 
such a return being in itself in some degree debatable. See below, p. 351, note 

3 It may indeed be urged that, if the disciples had received thus early this 
double testimony, the travellers to Emmaus would have alluded to such an 
appearance (comp. Luke xxiy. 22); but to this it may be replied, that, through- 
out, the tidings brought by the women seem to have been viewed with distrust ; 
the speakers rather appeal to what the apostles had seen and verified, and to 
them the Lord had certainly not yet appeared. 


Lect. ὙΠ. THE FORTY DAYS. obit 


which they had at once fallen in trembling and believing 
adoration. They saw, they believed, they touched, and they 
worshipped. More we know not; where they were, or 
under what circumstances they thus beheld the Lord, must 
remain only a matter of the merest conjecture.? If we 
adopt the received text we may seem to have some 
grounds for thinking that this appearance was vouchsafed 
to the women soon after leaving the sepulchre; but as the 
text which favors such an opinion has been justly regarded 
extremely doubtful? and as such a supposition scarcely 
admits of any reasonable reconciliation with the distinct 
statement of the second Evangelist that Mary 
Magdalene was the first mortal to whom the 
risen Lord vouchsafed to show Himself, we shall perhaps 


Mark xvi. 9. 


1 The conduct of the women, when our Lord thus vouchsafed to appear to 
them, is noticeable and instructive. It is specially recorded by St. Matthew 
(ch. xxviii. 9) that they ‘“‘ held Him by the feet,” and ‘‘ worshipped Him” (προ- 
σεκύνησαν αὐτόν). They at once recognize Him, with holy awe (ver. 9), not 
merely as their Teacher (contrast John xx. 16), but as their risen Lord, and 
instinctively pay Him an adoration which, as Bengel has rightly observed, was 
but rarely evinced towards our Lord by His immediate followers previous to His 
passion: ‘*Jesum ante passionem alii potius alieniores adorarunt quam disci- 
puli.” — In Matt. xxviii. 9. The exact feeling which led to their embracing the 
Lord’s feet has been differently estimated; the act may have been from a desire 
to convince themselves that it was He (Chrysost. in doc.), or from joy at again 
beholding Him they had thought lost to them (De Wette), but from the context 
(compare ver. 10) seems more naturally to have been from a reverential love (é« 
πόδου καὶ τιμῆς, Euthym.), that evinced itself in supplicating adoration. Com- 
pare Bp. Hacket, Serm. viii. on Resurr. Ὁ. 618 (Lond. 1675). 

2 We have nothing from which to infer where or when our Lord appeared to 
the women. If we adopt what seems the true reading in ver. 9 (see the following 
note), there seems nothing unreasonable in the conjecture that, after the delivery 
of the first tidings to the Apostles, they directed their steps back again to the 
sepulchre (see above, p. 844, note 2), and that it was on their way there that the 
Lord vouchsafed to appear to them. 

3 If we adopt the received text in Matt. xxviii. 9, ὧς δὲ ἐπορεύοντο ἀπαγγεῖλαι 
τοῖς μαϑηταῖς αὐτοῦ, we have no alternative but to suppose that the appearance 
of our Lord took place when the women were /jirst on their way to the apostles. 
As, however, the above words are rejected by Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Tre- 
gelles, on what seems sufficient evidence (see Tischend. in Joc. Vol. i. p. 164), and 
have strongly the appearance of an explanatory gloss, we are in no way neces- 
sitated by the context to refer the incident to the first journey. No valid objec- 
tion to this can be urged from the πορευομένων δὲ αὐτῶν of ver. 11; the apostle, 
having related all connected with the women, reverts to the terrified guard 
(ver. 4), and to the further circumstances conected with them; to this fresh para- 
graph he suitably prefixes a note of time. 


302 THE FORTY DAYS. Lect. VIII. 


be right in conceiving that the appearance was subse- 
quent to the first communication which the women made 
to the Apostles, and most undoubtedly subsequent to the 
appearance to Mary Magdalene. It might thus seem 
designed not only to add confirmation to the statements 
which had been made by Mary, but again to convey a 
special and singular command relative to the Lord’s ap- 
pearance in Galilee? which had first been alluded to by the 
angels, and appears to have been directed, 
and indeed understood to have been directed, 
to all the company of believers then abiding in Jeru- 
salem. 
But the apostles were to receive yet a third and more 
convincing testimony that their Lord had 
of mar Dovearan“e yisen, and had been seen, yea, and spoken 
heving te Bet with, by those who had known Him in the 
flesh. Meet indeed was it that the holy 
eleven should now learn to believe. Were they to be the 
last to welcome back ‘their risen Saviour? Were their 
hearts to be duller even than that of the Lord’s worst and 
most cruel enemies? Already we know that these things 


Luke xxiv. 9. 


1 Independently of the very distinct statement of Mark xvi. 9, ἐφάνη πρῶ- 
τον Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ (opp. to Robinson, Bibl. Sacra, Vol. ii. p. 178), it 
seems impossible, on sound principles of interpretation, to maintain, with Wiese- 
ler (Chron. Syn. p. 426) and others, that the appearance recorded in John xx. 14 
sq. is identical with that to the other women; every circumstance is not only 
different, but contrasted. See Stier, Disc. ef owr Lord, Vol. viii. p. 91 (Clark), 
and comp. Andrewes, Serm. iv. Vol. ii. p. 288 (A.-C. L.), Hacket, Serm. viii. on 
Resurr. p. 616 (Lond. 1675), both of whom rightly consider the appearance to 
Mary distinct from that to the women. 

2 The repetition, from our Lord’s own lips, of the direction which had so 
recently been given by the angels (Matt. xxviii. 7, Mark xvi. 7), that the disci- 
ples were to depart into Galilee, accompanied with the reiterated promise that 
there they should see Him (Matt. xxviii. 10), seems clearly to invest the appear- 
ance specified by St. Matthew (ver. 16 sq.) as having taken place in that country 
with great importance and significance. The very distinct and consoling κάκει 
με ὄψονται (ver. 10), when coupled with the remembrance that it is simply cer- 
tain that on the present day (John xx. 19) our Lord appeared to the eleven and 
those with them in Jerusalem, seems certainly to predispose us to believe that 
the appearance in Galilee was to the Church at large, and thus was identical 
with the appearance specified 1 Cor. xv. 6. See, however, the further remarks, 
p- 368, note 1. 


Lect. VIII. THE FORTY DAYS. 353 


had reached the ears of the Sanhedrin, and that the 
tidings brought by the terrified soldiers had 
caused them deliberately to fabricate a lie for 
these bribed watchers to repeat,’ lest the fact of the super- 
natural disappearance of the body should be publicly 
known, and the multitude should believe what their very 
lie showed they themselves were in a great measure forced 
to admit. Were Romans to testify, and Jews to accept, 
and Christians still to doubt ? Friends, it seemed, required 
fuller confirmation than enemies, and fuller confirmation 
was it mercifully appointed that they were yet to receive. 
Ere the day closed two of the Lord’s followers, but neither, 
as it would seem, of the number of the eleven,’ were 
to be the bearers of the third testimony to 

the still perplexed and doubting Apostles, “a7 = 
On the particulars of that interesting jour- 

ney to Emmaus?® it will not be necessary to dwell, as 


Natt. xxviii. 11. 


1 The studious way in which this lie was propagated is alluded to by Justin 
Martyr (Trypho, cap. 108, compare capp. 17, 117), who taxes the Jewish rulers 
with having sent out ‘chosen men over the whole world” for this special pur- 
pose. Compare also Tertullian, adv. Marc. 111. 23. The missionary efforts of 
the Jews against the Christians are mentioned by Eusebius (in Jes. xviii. 1) ina 
valuable passage cited both by Thirlby and Otto in their notes on Just. M. 
Trypho, cap. 17. Compare Tertull. ad Nat.1.14, adv. Jude@os. cap. 18. Some 
good comments on the incident of the bribery of the guards, and on the fact that 
it is especially related by St. Matthew, will be found in Sherlock, Trial of Wit- 
nesses, Vol. v. p. 182, and in Sequel of Trial, ib. p. 274. 

2 Who the two disciples were has been much debated. The popular view that 
Cleopas was identical with Clopas or Alphzus (comp. p. 101, note), and the further 
not unnatural supposition that his companion was James his son, are open to 
this etymological objection, that Κλεόπας appears not to be identical with KAw- 
πᾶς, but to be a shortened form of Κλεόπατρος, like ᾿Αντίπας (Rev. ii. 18) and 
similar forms. See Winer, Gr. § 16, 4.1, p. 98. If this be so, the slight proba- 
bility that the second of the two was James is proportionately weakened, and 
the appeal to 1 Cor. xv. 7 Jess plausible. We are thus thrown wholly upon con- 
jecture. This, in its most ancient form, appears to regard the unnamed disciple 
as Simon (Origen, Comment. in Joann. I. 7, Vol. iv. p. 8, ed. Bened.), and both 
as of the number of the seventy disciples; ‘‘ And you must know that these two 
belonged to the number of the seventy, and that Cleopas’s companion was 
Simon, —not Peter, nor he of Cana, but another of the seventy.” — Cyril. Alex. 
Comment. on St. Luke, Part 11. p. 726 (Transl.). 

3 The site of Emmaus is somewhat doubtful. In ancient times it appears to 
have been identified with Nicopolis on the border of the plain of 'Philistia, but 
erroneously, as the distance of this latter place from Jerusalem (about twenty- 


805 


954 THE FORTY DAYS. Lect. VIII. 


all is so clear and simple, and so completely free from those 
difficulties of adjustment with which we have hitherto 
had to contend. We may, however, pause to remark, that 
the time when the incident took place is generally defined 
by St. Luke as having formed part of the 
same day on which our Lord rose from the 
wom, 59: com grave. As we know that it was not yet 

evening when the two disciples turned back- 
ward to Jerusalem, and as we are also specially informed 
by the Evangelist of the distance’ of Emmaus from the 
city, we may perhaps reasonably suppose 
that they started some little time before mid- 
day, and so, very probably, might have heard of the later 
announcements made to the Apostles by Mary Magda- 
lene and the other ministering women. “ Him they saw 
not” seems, however, to be the pathetic bur- 
den of their discourse and their commun- 
ings,” and forms, as it were, the sad summary of that want 


Ch. xxiv. 18. 


Ver. 18. 


Ver. 24. 


two Roman miles) cannot possibly be reconciled with the distance specified by 
the Evangelist. See next note. In later times it has been identified with the 
village of El-Kubeibeh, about two and a half hours N. W. of Jerusalem (Van 
de Velde, Memoir to Map, p. 309), but for this there appears no reasonable 
grounds of any kind. Either, then, with Porter (Smith, Dict. s. v., Vol. i. 548), 
we must consider the site yet to be identified, or we must accept the tradition of 
the Greek church, which places it at Kuriet el-’-Enab (Abu Gish). In defence of 
this latter opinion, see some good remarks of Williams, Journal of Philology, 
Vol. iv. p. 262 sq. 

1 A few manuscripts (Π K1 N; 5 cursive MSS.) and a few versions read ἑκα- 
τὸν ἑξήκοντα for ἑξήκοντα in Luke xxiv. 18, making the distance of Emmaus 
one hundred and sixty instead of sixty stadia from Jerusalem. This reading 
has been supported by Robinson (Palestine, Vol. iii. p. 150, ed. 2) as tending to 
favor his identification of Emmaus with ’Amwas (the ancient Nicopolis), but is 
rightly rejected by all modern editors. The statement of Josephus (Bell. Jud. 
vil. 6. 6) that there was a place of this name sixty stadia (so all the best MSS.) 
from Jerusalem, and the other arguments urged by Reland against the identifi- 
cation with Nicopolis, have justly been considered satisfactory and final. See 
Palestina, p. 426 sq. 

2 Τὸ is doubtful how much information the two travellers to Emmaus had 
received in reference to our Lord’s resurrection. It might possibly be concluded 
from Luke xxiy. 23, 24, that they had not heard of the tidings brought by 
Mary Magdalene and the women relative to the Lord’s appearances, but this, 
owing to the time at which they appear to have started, is not likely. They 
probab] y speak in reference to the confirmatory reports of the τινὲς τῶν σὺν 
ἡμῖν (ver. 24), and to what they themselves believed. See above, p. 860, note 2, 


Lect. VIII. THE FORTY DAYS. 355 


of faith which the Lord was pleased so mercifully and so 
effectually to rebuke by the deliberate statement and ex- 
position’ of all the passages of the prophetic 
Scriptures that related to Himself, and had 
foretold His approaching glorification. 

One other remark we may make on the apparently sin- 
gular fact that the two disciples were not able protec) 
to recognize our Lord till the very moment of disciples to recog- 
His departure; that they not only beheld “~ ay ran 
Him, and heard His words, but felt their hearts kindle as 
they listened to His teaching, and yet never 
surmised even who it was that spake with 
them. Singular indeed such a fact does seem if we are to 
reason merely from what we know or think we may know 
of that which constitutes personal identity,? but in no- 
wise singular if we will dismiss our philosophy and our 
speculations, and accept only what is told us by one and 
confirmed by another Evangelist. Plainly 
are we told by St. Luke that the eyes of the 
two disciples were holden, that by divine interposition ® 


Luke xxiv. 27. 


Ver. 32. 


Ver. 16. 


1 There is some little difficulty in the explanation of the words καὶ ἀρξάμενος 
ard Mwiicéws κ. τ. A. Luke xxiv. 27. The simplest interpretation is either to 
regard the καὶ ἀρξάμενος as belonging to both parts (“ beginning with Moses, 
and with each of the prophets as he came to them,” Meyer, Alford), or, still 
more simply, to consider the second ἀπὸ as a continuation and echo of the first, 
which necessarily turns the substantive it precedes into the genitive, and involves 
a slight laxity in the mode of expression, the meaning really being, ‘‘ He began 
with Moses, and went through all the prophets.’”? See Winer, Gram. ὃ 67. 2, p. 
557 (ed. 6). 

2Into such considerations it seems here wholly undesirable to enter, as in 
ΟΠ ordinary cases they involve much that is debatable, and, in the present, much 
that is presumptuous. All that we are concerned to know and believe may be 
very simply stated. On the one hand, we have before us in this portion of the 
Gospel history the certain fact that our Lord’s body was the same body as that 
which was laid in the tomb (Luke xxiv. 89, John xx. 20), and, on the other, the 
certain fact that His form sometimes appeared to be so far different from it 
(Mark xvi. 12) as not to be recognized. The reconciliation of these two state- 
ments may be difficult, owing to our ignorance of the exact nature of the Lord’s 
resurrection body, but the facts no less remain. 

3 The meaning of the words of ὀφϑαλμοὶ αὐτῶν ἐκρατοῦντο (Luke xxiv. 16) is 
simply, as expressed by the authorized version, ‘‘ their eyes were holden *’(‘‘ tene- 
bantur,” Vulg.; ““ detenti erant,’’ Syr:), — their eyes were prevented from exert- 
ing their full power of recognition. Compare Kypke, Obs. Sacr. Vol. i. Ρ. 838. 


356 THE FORTY DAYS. ποτ. VIII. 


they were prevented from recognizing their Lord till He 
was pleased to reveal Himself. Plainly, too, is this con- 
firmed by St. Mark, who, in declaring that our Lord 
appeared to these disciples in a “different 
form,” intimates with all clearness that our 
Lord was pleased to exercise one of the powers which had 
in part belonged to His former body,’ and perhaps wholly 
and naturally belonged to His resurrection body, whereby 
the characterizing expression of His most holy form could 
be weakened or withdrawn until the power of recognition 
on the part of the natural beholder was completely lost. 
What the third Evangelist expresses in one form of words, 
the second Evangelist expresses in another, both however 
asserting the same simple truth, that the Lord was pleased 
to exercise a power, whether belonging to Him in respect 
of His divine nature, or of His most sinless, pure, and now 
glorified? humanity, we know not, nor need we pause to 


Ch. xvi. 12. 


The agency by which this was effected is not specified, but obviously was 
divine. The seeming discrepancy between this passage and Mark xvi. 12, is thus 
excellently discussed by Augustine: ‘‘Cum legitur ‘tenebantur oculi eorum ne 
agnoscerent eum’ (Luc. xxiv. 16), impedimentum quoddam agnoscendi videtur 
in luminibus factum esse cernentium; cum vero aperte dicitur, ‘ Apparuit eis in 
alia effigie’ (Marc. xvi. 12), utique in ipso corpore cujus alia erat effigies, aliquid 
factum fuisse, quo impedimiento tenerentur, id est moram agnoscendi paterentur 
oculi eorum.” — Epist. CXLIx. 31, Vol. ii. p. 643 (ed. Migné). 

1 Independently of any special exercise of our Lord’s divine power, it would 
seem, from the fact of the Transfiguration, that His pure and perfect humanity 
admitted of revelations of concealed glory which involved positive changes of 
appearance (Luke ix. 29), and yet in no way interfered with the reality of His 
earthly body. See Augustine, Zpist. cxL1x. 31, Vol. ii. p. 648 (ed. Migné), and 
Miiller, Christian Doctr. of Sin, Vol. ii. p. 829 (Clark). 

2 A few comments on this subject will be found in Stier, Disc. of our Lord, 
Vol. viii. p. 101 sq. (Clark). Compare also Ebrard, Kritik der Evang. Gesch. 
§ 111. p. 588. The explanation indirectly suggested by Sherlock, Trial of the 
Witnesses, Vol. v. p. 195 (ed. Hughes), that the want of recognition on the part 
of the two disciples was owing partly to the persuasion they were under that 
their Lord was dead, and partly to their position, — walking side by side, — is 
neither in itself plausible, nor reconcilable with the clear statement of Mark 
xvi. 12. 

3 The term “ΠΟΥ glorified”? is here only used in a general and popular sense, 
and not to be understood as denying that there was any further glorification of 
the body after the resurrection. Upon such subjects it is not either very safe or 
very desirable to speculate too freely; it may, however, be added, that the opin- 
ion of some of the sounder expositors of recent times—that during the myste- 


Lecr. VII. THE FORTY DAYS. 357 


inquire, but by which, whensoever it seemed good to our 
Lord’s divine wisdom, the holy body suddenly ceased to 
be seen, or appeared without those lineaments that were 
necessary for recognition. 
But let us return to the narrative. It was late evening 
before the two disciples returned to Jerusalem 
Appearance to 


and appeared before the Apostles, who now,  seten Apostles. 
with other members of the infant Church ,,0”” 7" ™ 
were assembled together, and on whom some με arin. ὅδ. 

6 raiv. 84, 
recent appearance of our Lord to St. Peter 
had made apparently so great an impression,” that they at 


once greet the new comers with the joyful tidings, that 


rious period of the forty days the glorification of the Lord’s holy body was pro- 
gressive — is, if not distinctly confirmed by the sacred narrative (consider, 
however, ἀναβαίνω, John xx. 17), still by no means inconsistent with it, and 
deserves, perhaps, some slight consideration. See Stier, Disc. of our Lord, Vol. 
Viii. p. 89, Miiller, Doctr. of Sin, Vol.ii. p. 328 (Clark), and comp. below, p. 366, 
note 1. 

1 The language of St. Luke, εὗρον ἠδροισμένους τοὺς ἕνδεκα καὶ τοὺς σὺν 
αὐτοῖς, ch. xxiv. 33, leads us to conclude that others beside the apostles were pres- 
ent at the appearance of our Lord which we are now considering. Whether, how- 
ever, all, or whether only the ten Apostles received the first-fruits of the Holy 
Spirit (John xx. 22), cannot positively be decided, as St. John only uses the gen- 
eral term μαϑηταί. Analogy might seem to suggest that, as others beside the Apos- 
tles (consider Acts ii. 1,4) appear to have received the miraculous gift of the Spirit 
on the day of Pentecost, so it might have been now; the power of binding and 
loosing, however, which seems to have been specially conveyed in this gift of 
the Spirit (see Chrysost. im loc.), more naturally directs our thoughts solely to 
the Apostles, and leads us to think that they were on this occasion the only 
recipients; the ἀπαρχὴ of the Spirit is received by the ἀπαρχὴ of the Church. 
So Andrewes, who, in his sermon on this text, defines ‘‘ the parties to whom” as 
the Apostles. — Serm. 1x. Vol. iii. p. 263 (A.-C. L.). 

2 Of the appearance of our Lord to St. Peter, incidentally mentioned by St. 
Luke, and further confirmed by 1 Cor. xv. 5, we know nothing. It certainly 
occurred after the return from the sepulchre (Luke xxiv. 12, John xx. 10), but 
whether before the appearance to the two disciples on their way to Emmaus 
(Lange, Leben Jesu, 11. 8. 8, Part 111. p. 1691), or after it, as conjectured by Cyril 
Alex. (Comment. on St. Luke, Part 11. p. 728, note), cannot be determined. The 
effect, however, produced by it was clearly very great. The words of the disci- 
ples now show plainly their conviction of the truth of the Lord’s resurrection 
(ἠγέρϑη ὃ Κύριος ὄντως, ver. 34), and the very construction adopted by the 
Evangelist implies how eager they were in expressing it: εὗρον ἠδροισμένους 
τοὺς ἕνδεκα καὶ τοὺς σὺν αὐτοῖς λέγοντας K. τ. A. ver. 84. They gaye but little 
credence to the accounts of the women, but in the report of one of their own 
number, and that one St. Peter, they very naturally put the fullest confidence. 
See above, p. 350, note 2. 


858 THE FORTY DAYS. Lecr. VIII, 


“the Lord had risen indeed, and appeared unto Simon.” 
And now they too in their turn have a tes- 
timony to render to the assembled disciples 
more full and explicit than any that had yet been delivered 
that eventful day. They have seen the Lord, they have 
journeyed with Him, they have conversed with Him, they 
have been instructed by Him, they have sat down with 
Him to an evening meal,’ they have received bread from 
His sacred hands, and, at the very moment when recog- 
nition was permitted, they have seen Him vanish from 
their longing eyes. To such a testimony we marvel not to 
find it recorded that full belief even now was not extended. 
Events so circumstantial and so minutely specified seemed 
perhaps less to confirm than to bewilder. They might at 
length have been led to admit the already thrice-repeated 
statement that the Lord had been seen, that His sacred form 
had passed before the eyes of Peter, that it had even been 
seen by Mary Magdalene, and, even further, that it had been 
touched, or thought to have been touched, by the other 
women ;— this they might at length have been disposed 
either wholly or in part to believe, but the 
present narrative seemed to involve ideas 
of a bodily form and substance which their 
subsequent fears and our Lord’s gentle reproof showed 


Luke xxiv. 34. 


Luke xxiv. 37. 
Ver. 88. 


1 It does not appear from the inspired narrative that our Lord actually shared 
with them their evening meal. The words καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ κατακλιδϑῆναι 
kK. τ. A. (ver. 80) seem rather to imply that the Lord vouchsafed to sit down with 
the two disciples, and took the position, gladly offered, of master of the house, 
but that after He had pronounced the customary blessing (Mishna, ‘‘ Berachoth,” 
vi. 6; the citation in Lightfoot, reproduced by most expositors, ‘Tres viri qui 
simul comedunt tenentur ad gratias indicendum” [cap. VII. 1] appears to refer to 
grace after meat), and had broken the bread and given it to the two disciples, 
He permitted Himself to be recognized, and then vanished from their eyes. 
The act by which the Lord was pleased to awaken their powers of recognition 
was “the breaking of the bread” (ἐν TH KAdoet τοῦ ἄρτου, ver. 35; on this 
force of ἐν, see notes on 1 Thess. iv. 18); but how, whether by allowing them to 
see the wounds on His sacred hands, or (more probably) by some solemn and 
well-remembered gesture, we can only conjecture. The opinion of many of the 
early writers, that this was a celebration of the Eucharist, seems inconsistent 
with the specification of time (ἐν τῷ kaTakA.) and the general circumstances of 
the present supper. 


Lect. VIIL. THE FORTY DAYS. 359 


they regarded as inconceivable and incredible.’ We have 
no need, then, to explain away the accurate statement of 
the second Evangelist that they believed not 
the strange recital of the wayfarers to Em- 
maus” But, lo! a yet fuller testimony was now to be 
vouchsafed. Even while they were considering and dis- 
cussing these things, and now perhaps putting questions in 
every form to the two latest witnesses, the Lord Himself 
appears among them, and with words of holy and benedic- 
tory greeting shows unto them both His 
hands and His side. At first, as we learn 
from St. Luke’s narrative, they were above measure per- 
turbed and terrified; they well knew that the doors were 
closed, and yet they plainly beheld their Lord standing 
before them ;* they knew not what to think ; they conceive 


Ch. xvi. 14. 


John xx. 20. 


1In spite of the joyful avowal of their belief that the Lord had risen, the 
disciples, as the inspired narrative plainly specifies, are greatly terrified (Luke 
Xxiv. 87) when the Lord actually appears. This was not in itself wholly unnat- 
ural, but seems to have been increased by the belief that they were beholding a 
spirit (ἐδόκουν πνεῦμα δεωρεῖν), a persuasion against which our Lord’s subse- 
quent words are specially directed. This in some measure prepares us for the 
statement in Mark xvi. 18. See the following note. 

2 Tiere is confessedly, at first sight, some difficulty in reconciling the joyful 
greeting of the Apostles and their spontaneous announcement of the appear- 
ance to Simon (Luke xxiy. 84) with the incredulity with which St. Mark (ch. 
xvi. 18) tells us they received the account of the two disciples from Emmaus. It 
is possible that the οὐδὲ ἐκείνοις ἐπίστευσαν (ver. 13) may refer, not to the Apos- 
tles, but to some of the others (τοῖς Aorrots} to whom they related it (see August. 
de Consens. Evang. 111. 25), but it seems more reasonable to suppose, as in the 
text, that the want of belief is to be accounted for by the strangely circumstan- 
tial nature of the narrative of the two disciples, the contrasts it presented to 
two of the other appearances, and perhaps also to the third, and also further, 
its seeming incompatibility with what they might have conceived to be their 
Master’s present state. He whose feet suppliant and adoring women deemed 
they clasped, seemed widely different from the humble wayfarer to Emmaus. 

3 The special notice τῶν ϑυρῶν κεκλεισμένων (Jonn xx. 19), repeated ver. 26, 
and in the latter case without any repetition of the reason, seems to point to the 
mode of the Lord’s entry (ἄϑροον ἔστη μέσος, Chrysost.) as involving some- 
thing marvellous and supernatural. How this took place we are wholly unable 
to explain, but the conjecture may be hazarded that it was not so much spe- 
cially miraculous, as due to the very nature and properties of the body of the 
risen Lord. Compare p. 856sq. The attempts to show that this might have 
been merely a natural entry (Robinson, Bibl. Sacr. Vol. ii. p. 182, comp. Sher- 
lock, Trial of Witn. Vol. v. p. 196) do not seem successful. The ἔστη εἰς τὸ 
μέσον of St. John appears correlative to the ἄφαντος ἐγένετο of St. Luke (ch. 
xxiv. 81); if the latter be supernatural, so certainly would seem the former. 


360 THE FORTY DAYS. Lecr. VII. 


it must be His bodiless spirit that they are now beholding, 
and the flesh quailed. Though partially reassured by the 
sight of the wounds, and by the condescend- 
ty ing love which permitted them to touch the 
fate wri holy body that stood before them, they even 
then could not fully believe. But that lack- 
ing belief now no longer arose from a dull or faithless 
heart, but from a bewildering joy :’ it was to be excused, 
yea, 1t was so far to be borne with that a special sign, 
which on another occasion had probably been 
used in a similar way to bring final conviction, 
was yet to be vouchsafed to the overjoyed but amazed be- 
holders. The fish and the honey-comb were 
taken by Him who, as Augustine has well 
said, “had “the power though not the need of eating;”? 
they were taken in the presence of all; the 
Lord was pleased to eat thereof; and then, as 
we may infer from the context, the Apostles and assembled 
followers believed with all the fulness of a fervent, lasting, 
and enduring faith. Then at length the first-fruits of the 
effusion of the Holy Spirit were conveyed by 
an outward sign and medium, and the myste- 
rious power of binding and loosing was conferred upon the 
inspired and anew accredited Apostles.® 


Mark v. 48. 


Take axiv. 42. 


Ver. 43. 


John xx. 22. 


1See Luke xxiv. 41, ἀπιστούντων αὐτῶν ἀπὸ τῆς χαρᾶς. With this the 
ἐχάρησαν ἰδόντες τὸν Κύριον of St. John (ch. xx. 20) seems exactly to harmo- 
nize. Joy is the pervading feeling, so great and so overwhelming, that they can 
hardly believe the evidence of their very eyes and ears. Both Chrysostom and 
Cyril of Alexandria here refer to John xvi. 22 as now notably fulfilled. 

2 This appears to have been a favorite comment of Augustine, and is as reason- 
able as it is pertinently expressed: “‘ Fecit cum discipulis quadraginta dies, intrans 
et exiens, manducans et bibens, non egestate sed potestate ; manducans et bibens, 
non esuriendo nec sitiendo, sed docendo et monstrando.” Serm. CCXCLVIII. 2, 
Vol. v. p. 1860. See also Serm. cxvt. 8, Vol. v. p. 659, in Joann. Tractat. LXIV. 
1, Vol. iii. p. 1806, an interesting passage in the Civit. Dei, x111. 22, Vol. vii. p. 
895, and some sound remarks in Cyril Alex. Commentary on St. Luke, Part 11. 
p. 730 (Trans].). 

3 The mysterious power now given to the Apostles was an essential adjunct to 
their office as the ambassadors of Christ, and, more especially, as the rulers of 
His Church; ‘ potestas ista.... primitus Apostolis ut ecclesia magistris et rec- 
toribus demandata est.” Barrow, de Potest. Clav. Vol. viii. 118. It had refer- 


Lect. VIII. THE FORTY DAYS. 901 


But one there yet was of the number of the holy eleven 
who had not beheld with his own eyes, and 
who could not and would not believe even go. om terds am 
the overwhelming testimony of the assembled 2rere  ” 
believers. Seven days was he to remain in 
his unbelief. While his brother Apostles were now the 
probably conscious recipients of the eternal Spirit,’ the 
unconvinced Thomas was yet seeking for outward and 
material evidences, without which he had 
avowed that he could not believe. And even 
these were vouchsafed to the now isolated Apostle. We 
read in the inspired narrative of the fourth 
Evangelist, how on the day which the Lord’s 
renewed appearance thereon had now begun to stamp 
with a special sanctity,? our Lord appears in the same 


John xx. 25. 


Ver. 26. 


ence, as Meyer rightly observes, not merely to the general power of receiving 
into the Church or the contrary, but to their disciplinary power over individual 
members of it, both in respect of the retaining and the absolving of sins. On 
the subject generally, see Andrewes, Serm. Vol. v. p. 82(A.-C. Libr.) Barrow, 
de Potest. Clav. Vol. viii. p. 84 sq. (Oxf. 1830), Bingham, Works, Vol. viii. p. 357 
sq. (Lond. 1844),and comp. Marshall, Penit. Disc. τ. 2, p. 10 sq. (A.-C. L.), Thorn- 
dike, Princ. of Chr. Truth, τ. 9, Vol. ii. p. 157 (A.-C. L.). 

1 It seems right and reasonable to suppose that the Apostles now felt them- 
selves endued with that gift of the Holy Ghost which they had received from 
their Lord, though as yet they could have had no power of exercising it. That 
this was a real ἀπαρχὴ of the Holy Ghost is rightly maintained by all the best 
expositors; the gift was not general like that at the Pentecost, but special and 
peculiar (erhryaryev Oy ἂν ἀφῆτε κ. τ. A. δεικνὺς ποῖον εἶδος ἐνεργείας δίδωσιν, 
Chrysost.), yet no less veritably a gift of the Spirit. Luthardt (Johann. Evang. 
Part 11. p. 449) presses the absence of the article, and urges that it was only a 
spirit of the new life as coming from the risen but not ascended Lord: for such 
a distinction, however, there is no sound grammatical foundation (see notes on 
Gal. v. 5), and apparently no evidence deducible from the language of the N. T. 

2 It does not seem wholly improbable that we have here the very commence- 
ment, as it were, of the celebration of the Lord’s day, and the earliest indication 
of that observance of the first day of the week which the Lord’s resurrection 
had naturally evoked, and to which His present appearance gave additional 
sanction and validity. See Cyril Alex. in Joann. Xx. 26, Vol. iv. p. 1104, and 
compare Huls. Essay for 1848, p. 74. The fair statement of the whole contested 
subject would seem to be as follows, —that the dedication of one day of the week 
to the special service of God is binding on us by His primeval law, but that the 
special selection of the jirst day rests on Apostolical, and, as the present case 
seems to suggest, indirectly Divine appointment. Compare also Abp. Bramhall, 
Lord’s Day, Vol. v. p. 82 sq. (A.-C. L.). 


31 


362 THE FORTY DAYS. Lect. ὙΠ1. 


supernatural manner ;' we mark with adoring wonder how 
the personal test which the doubting Apostle had required 
was now vouchsafed to him, and it is with 
thankful joy that we hear that outburst of 
inspired conviction that now recognized in the risen Jesus, 
yea, in Him whose very wounds the privileged Apostle 
was permitted to touch, not so much the humanity as the 
divinity ;*—“and Thomas answered and said 
unto Him, My Lord, and my God.” 
Some time afterwards, how long we know not, followed 
the Lord’s manifestation of Himself by the 
peunxtnthet, ake of Tiberias, of which we have so full 
of Tiberias. and explicit account from the hand of the 
Ch-asi.1sq beloved Apostle. The promise of the great 
Mat πανί, 8. Shepherd that He would go before His flock 
into Galilee, and would there appear unto 
them, was now first most solemnly fulfilled. Seven Apos- 
tles® are the first witnesses, and under circum- 
_ vine’ stances which the distinct and emphatic lan- 
guage of the inspired narrator leads us to believe produced 


John xx. 27. 


Ver. 28. 


1 That our Lord’s appearance was supernatural again rests on the special 
notice of the fact of the closed doors. See above, p. 359, note 3. The peculiar 
terms (here ἔρχεται καὶ ἔστη, ver. 26, comp. ver. 19) which seem designedly used 
by the Evangelists in describing our Lord’s appearances are noticed by Stier, 
Dise. of our Lord, Vol. viii. p. 90 (Clark). 

2The declaration of St. Thomas has often and with justice been urged by 
writers upon our Lord’s divinity, but the exact circumstances under which it 
was made, and which add so much to its force, have not always been sufficiently 
considered. Let it then be observed that it is at the very time when our Lord is 
being graciously pleased to convince His doubting follower of the reality of His 
sacred body, in faet of His perfect humanity, that the Apostle so preéminently 
recognizes his Lord’s divinity. With his hands on the sacred wounds, with evi- 
dence the most distinct that He whom he was permitted to touch was man, the 
convinced disciple, in terms ‘the most explicit, declares Him to be God. Some 
sound comments on this text will be found in Cyril Alex. in Joann. xx. 28, Vol. 
iv. p. 1108 (ed. Aubert.), and for a collection of analogous passages, Waterland, 
Serm. vi. on our Lord's Divinity (Moyer’s Lect.) Vol. ii. p. 129. 

3 It is not perfectly certain that the two not mentioned by name (ἄλλοι ἐκ 
τῶν μαδητῶν αὐτοῦ δύο, ver. 2) were Apostles, as the word μαϑηταὶ has some- 
times in St. John a more inclusive sense. As, however, in verse 1 it seems used 
to specify the Apostles (with verse 1 compare John xx. 26, to which the πάλιν 
naturally refers the reader), the assumption that it is used in a similar sense in 
ver. 2 appears perfectly reasonable. See Liicke, in loc. Vol. ii. p. 806 (ed. 3). 


Lecr. VII. THE FORTY DAYS. 363 


an impression almost more deep and enduring than any they 
had yet received.t Upon the details, where all is told 
with such divine simplicity, and where there are no difhi- 
culties either in the language or in the sequence of the 
narrative, it will not perhaps be necessary to dwell. We 
may pause, however, to notice that again the disciples did 
not recognize the Lord, though they were 
near enough to the beach to hear his voice.’ 
On this occasion, however, there seems no reason to sup- 
pose that the Lord’s form was specially changed, or that it 
was not His divine pleasure that He should at first be rec- 
ognized. It was now, it must be remembered, early dawn; 
the wearied men probably saw the figure 
somewhat indistinctly, and with the unobserv- 
ing eye of those who expect nothing and indeed perceive 
nothing different to the usual homely incidents of their 
daily 116,3 they answer the friendly call of the stranger ; 


Ver. 4. 


John xxi. 4. 


1 It is not wholly improbable that the emphatic declaration of the Apostle at 
the close of the narrative, in reference to the truth of his testimony (John xxi. 
24), may have been occasioned by the feeling that this manifestation of our Lord 
was perhaps the most important that had yet been vouchsafed. It was indeed a 
manifestation (ἐφανέρῶσεν éx τούτου δῆλον, ὅτι οὐχ ἑωρᾶτο εἰ μὴ συγκατέβη, 
Chrys.) alike convincing and consolatory. On the one hand, in the various acts 
He was pleased to perform (ver. 13), it most clearly set forth the reality of the 
Lord’s risen body; and, on the other, it assured the Apostles of the continuance 
of those same miraculous powers which would have ever occupied so prominent 
a place in their retrospect of their Master’s earthly ministry. On the importance 
of this revelation, see Augustine, in Joann. Tractat. cxx11., where it is suggested 
that the concluding verses of the preceding chapter might have been added, — 
“secuture narrationis quasi proemium, quod ei quodammodo faceret eminentio- 
rem locum.” — Vol. iii. p. 1959 (ed. Migné). 

2The distance at which the boat was from the shore (about one hundred 
yards, ver. 8) would certainly be sufficient to prevent them immediately recog- 
nizing one whom, at that particular place and time, they were in no way 
expecting to see, unless, indeed, we are to suppose that there was something in 
the Lord’s form and general appearance strikingly different from that of other 
men. This, however, we have already seen, does not appear to have been the 
case. Comp. Lect. 111. p. 92, note 1. 

8 It seems natural to think that the friendly voice, ‘calling, after the manner 
of the East, children” (Stanley, Palest. p. 374), and inquiring if they had any 
προσφάγιον, was conceived by the disciples to be that of one who wished to buy 
of them, — ὡς μέλλων TL ὠνεῖσδαι Tap αὐτῶν, Chrysost. in loc. Comp. Cyril 
Alex. in Joann. Vol. iv. p. 1118. To this Dean Trench objects, supposing it to be 
merely the inquiry of that natural interest, “ποὺ unmixed with curiosity,” 


364 THE FORTY DAYS. Lect. VIIL 


and supposing Him to be one who would fain buy of them, 
they tell Him in the simplest way they have nothing. 
Even when told to cast in their net in a par- 
ticular place, they still appear: to have been 
in no way surprised by the order. It might 
be the suggestion of one experienced, or who had some 
reasons for his suggestion that they did not know, and did 
not pause to consider. They obey, perhaps, with the feeling 
of men who in their ill success were ready to 
take any suggestion, by whomsoever offered. 
The wonderful and miraculous draught,! however, at once 
arouses their attention. The sudden contrast with their 
weary and profitless night’s fishing, the great number of 
large fish, and the care requisite to bring them 
to the land, all bring back to their minds the 
never-forgotten miracle of the early part of the past year, 
when three at least of those now on the lake had received 
the divine call to become fishers of men, and had forsook, 
as they then perhaps thought, forever that 
calling to which they had now returned. 
Everything brings back the past; and he on 
whom the past had perhaps made the most permanent 
impression * is the first to recognize the blessedness of the 


Ver. 5. 
Ver. 6. 


Ver. 3. 


John xxi. 11. 


Matt. iv. 22. 
Luke v.11. 


which all feel in the uncertainty of the fisherman’s toil (Notes on Miracles, p. 
456). It should be remembered, however, that we are only considering how the 
Apostles understood the speech, and this, probably, is all that Chrysostom meant 
to imply. 

1 On this miracle, the peculiarities of which are the similarity it preserves te 
the former miracle on the lake, and the apparently symbolical character of some 
of its incidents, see the interesting, but perhaps too minutely allegorizing com- 
ments of Augustine, in Joann. Tractat. cxx11. Vol. iii. p. 1962 sq., Stier, Disc. of 
our Lord, Vol. viii. p. 212 sq., Trench, Notes on the Miracles, p. 453 sq. 

2 We may justify this casual remark not only by what followed, but by a 
reference to the fact that, though St. John had probably received his call a year 
previously to the former miracle (John i. 87 sq.), and had accompanied our Lord 
as one of His special followers, the miraculous draught of fishes constituted the 
epoch when he deliberately and formally left his father, his home, and all the 
employments of his former life (compare Matt. iv. 20, Mark i. 20, Luke v. 11) to 
become a fisherof men. St. Peter, we know, was much moved at the time by 
the miracle and its results (Luke vy. 9), but the impression produced on the mind 
of the younger Apostle, from the circumstances with which the miracle stood in 
connection, would probably have been more lasting. 


Lecr. VIII. THE FORTY DAYS. 365 


present. The Apostle whom the Lord loved is the first to 
recognize; and yet, as we might have expected, another is 
the first to greet... He who on that very lake, and under 
circumstances strikingly similar, had besought his holy 
Master to depart from one so sin-stained, now 
casts himself into the water, and is the first 
to kneel at the divine feet. 

One other point only requires a passing comment — the 
reverential awe felt by the disciples, and its 
connection with the circumstances of the ρον av 
morning meal. These circumstances, we 
know, were strange and perplexing. The fire of coals 
provided by the ministry of unseen agencies,’ 
the fish lying thereon, the bread — whence 
came they? Enough there was in this mys- 
terious provision which the Lord had just been pleased to 
make for the wants of His wearied disciples to account 
for the awed silence which, we are told, they 
preserved with regard to the exact state of 
His holy personality.’ Enough there was in this alone, 
without our being obliged to suppose that there was any 


Luke v. 8. 
John xxi. 7. 


John xxt. 9. 
Ver. 9. 


Ver. 12. 


1 The differences of nature and character, in the case of the two Apostles, 
which the incident discloses are thus clearly stated by Chrysostom, in Joc.: 
‘* When they recognized the Lord,” says this able commentator, ‘‘ again do the 
disciples display the peculiarities of their individual characters. The one, for 
instance, was more ardent, but the other more elevated; the one more eager, but 
the other endued with finer perception. On which account John was the first to 
recognize the Lord, but Peter to come to Him.”— Jn Joann. Hom. LXxxvVIl. 
Vol. viii. p. 594 (ed. Bened. 2). 

2 It is idle to speculate on the agencies which caused the fire of coals and the 
fish thereon to be found on the beach. The most reasonable and reverent sup- 
position is that it was miraculous (Chrysost., Theoph., al.); but as nothing is 
added from which any inference can be drawn, we must be content to leave the 
statement as we find it. The attempt of Lange (Leben Jesu, 11. 8. 6, Part III. p, 
1713) to account for it in a natural way is certainly not satisfactory. 

3 Observe especially the comment of the Apostle, οὐδεὶς ἐτόλμα τῶν μαδητῶν 
ἐξετάσαι αὐτόν, Sv τίς ef, John xxi. 12. Here, again, the explanation of 
Chrysostom seems perfectly satisfactory: ‘‘ Seeing his form somewhat different 
to what it was before, and with much about it that caused astonishment, they 
were above measure amazed, and felt a desire to make some inquiry about it; 
but their apprehension, and their knowledge that it was not another, but Him- 
self, restrained the inquiry.” — Zn Joann. Vol. viii. p. 594 sq. 


31* 


900 THE FORTY DAYS. Lecr. VII. 


special alteration in the Lord’s appearance. A change 
doubtless there was, as the early interpreters have rightly 
surmised,' but it was a change probably rather felt than 
seen; a change that might have deepened their reverential 
awe, but in no way interfered with the warm feelings of 
holy love which two at least appear to have specially 
evinced both in their words and their ac- 
tions. The very last glimpse we are per- 
mitted to behold of this third blessed interview with the 
disciples, so rich in symbol and so deep in meaning — this 
continuance, as it were, after the weary night had passed 
away, of the Last Supper,” is an incident that brings back 
the past, and mingles it, as it were, with the blessed and 
glorious present. Again St. Peter and St. John appear 
before us in their wonted relations of warmest and most 
clinging love to their holy Master. We see the Lord 
gradually and perhaps mysteriously withdrawing ;° we see 


Comp. ver. 19, 20. 


1 See the above note. The exact words of Chrysostom are τὴν μορφὴν ἀλλοιο- 
τέραν ὁρῶντες, by which we may conclude he intended to imply a partial 
change, something easy to recognize, but not easy to specify. Comp. Luthardt, 
Johann. Evang. Part 11. p. 468. If we admit the suggestion that has already 
been thrown out (p. 356, note 8), we may perhaps allow ourselves to imagine that 
the developing glorification of the Lord was now beginning to make a more dis- 
tinct impression on the beholders. 

2 Compare Stier, Disc. ef our Lord, Vol. viii. p. 226, where, as in all sounder 
and deeper expositions of this portion of Scripture, the mystical and typicai 
character of the early morning meal, as well as of the preceding miracle, is 
properly recognized. The details of many of these interpretations, and the 
desirableness of the attempts to allegorize every particular, 6. g., the number of 
fish (Jerome, Cyril Alex., Theoph., al.), may most fairly be called in question; 
. but the general reference of the miracle to the future labors of the Apostles, its 
analogy to the previous miracle, and, perhaps, the retrospective reference of 
this morning meal to the Lord’s Supper, can hardly be denied by any thoughtful 
expositor. See Luthardt, Johann. Evang. Part 11. p. 466 sq., Trench, Notes on 
the Miracles, p. 459 sq., and a good note of Alford, im loc. Vol. i. p. 861 (ed. 4). 

3 It seems probable that, as our Lord uttered the words “ Follow me” (ver. 
19), He commenced withdrawing from the Apostles. Peter, not fully under- 
standing the meaning of the command, obeys in a literal sense. While advanc- 
ing, he turns and looks round, and sees the beloved Apostle following also, 
upon which he puts the inquiry, οὗτος δὲ τί (é. e., probably ἔσται), “ what shall 
his lot be?” (ver. 21). It may be observed that the true meaning of ἀκολούϑει 
μοι, when viewed in connection with what precedes, would seem to be *‘ follow 
me, even unto that martyr’s death for my name which I have but just now 
foretold.” Compare Augustine, in Joann. Tractat. oxxiv. 1, Vol. iii. p. 1970 
(ed. Migné). 


Lect. VIII. THE FORTY DAYS. 307 


the elder Apostle perhaps obeying literally the figurative 
command of his Lord, and behind him the 
true-hearted son of Zebedee, both following 
the steps of their receding Saviour; we hear the solemn 
and mysterious words in answer to the un- 
befitting question,’ and the holy, exalted, and 
most impressive scene fades away from our wondering eyes. 
But this interview, full as it was of blessedness and con- 
solation, was not to be the last. The Lord 
had promised, even on the morning of His Pigg ey iG 
resurrection, that He would meet His Church baa a λοις 
in that land in which it had formerly been 
established and consolidated. And there, as it would 
seem, all now were assembled,” hourly expecting the com- 
plete fulfilment of a promise, of which the last-mentioned 
interview had been a commencement and first-fruits. Nor 
did they tarry long. Probably within a few days after 
the appearance by the lake, and on a moun- 
tain which He had appointed, perchance that 
of the Beatitudes,’ the Lord manifests Himself not only to 


Ver. 19. 


John xxi, 22. 


Ver. 16. 


1 The exact meaning of the words used in reference to St. John has been 
much discussed. The most simple and satisfactory explanation would seem to 
be that alluded to by Theophylact, according to which the coming of the Lord 
is to be understood of that form of His advent which in His last prophecy He 
was pleased to connect with His final advent, viz., the fall of Jerusalem. Com- 
pare Matt. xiv. 28. The hypothetical mode of explanation (Cyril Alex., al.), and 
that which refers μένειν to a natural death, seem much less satisfactory. 

2 It seems reasonable to suppose that the great promise uttered by the angels 
after the resurrection (Matt. xxviii. 7, Mark xvi. 7), and specially confirmed by 
our Lord (John xx. 10), was understood to apply to the whole Church, and had 
induced the greater part of the brethren who were then in Jerusalem to take 
their way to Galilee and there await its fulfilment. Some of the Apostles, we 
have seen, had not only returned to Galilee but even resumed their former call- 
ing (John xxi. 2). 

3 The exact scene of the solemn meeting is not further specified than as being 
“the mountain which Jesus appointed,” and in Galilee (Matt. xxviii. 16). The 
only two conjectures worthy of consideration are (@) that it was Tabor, which 
from its situation might seem not unsuitable for a place of general meeting (see 
Lange, Leben Jesu, 11. 8. 7, Part 111. p. 1780), and (δ) that it was the mountain on 
which the Sermon had been delivered, which, from its proximity to the lake of 
Tiberias (see p. 169, note 2) and to the populous plain of Gennesareth, might 
seem, topographically considered, even more suitable than Tabor, and from its 
connection with the founding of the Church much more probable, considered 


368 THE FORTY DAYS. Lect. VII. 


the eleven, but, as the terms of his promise seem fairly 
to imply, to the five hundred brethren’ al- 

a a Inded to by St. Paul. The interview was of 
the deepest solemnity, and tends to set forth 

the majesty of the risen Lord in a manner far more distinct 
than had even yet been witnessed. While a 
few doubt the evidence of their senses,” and 
cannot apparently believe that they are beholding their 
Lord, the chosen eleven no sooner see than 
they adore. That adoration the Lord now 
not only accepts, but confirms by the mighty declaration 
that “all power now was given to Him in heaven and in 
earth.” Yea, He gives it a yet deeper meaning and fuller 
significance by now issuing His great evangelical com- 
mission, and by enhancing it with that promise of bound- 
less consolation —that with those that execute that com- 
mission He will be present unto the end, even unto the 


Matt. xxviii. 17. 


Matt. xxviii. 17. 


theologically. The supposition of Hofmann (Leben Jesu, § 89, p. 897) that the 
term ‘‘ Galilee” here used by St. Matthew really refers, not to the country but to 
the northern summit of Olivet, which appears to have been so named (though 
not by any early writers), is by no means natural or probable. 

1 Nearly all the best recent expositors concur in supposing, that the appear- 
ance of our Lord mentioned by St. Matthew (ch. xxviii. 16) is identical with that 
alluded to by St. Paul (1 Cor. xv. 6) as having been vouchsafed to above five hun- 
dred brethren at once. Comp. Wieseler, Chron. Synops. Ὁ. 434, Robinson, Bibl. 
Sacra, Vol. ii. p. 185. It is true that St. Matthew only specifies the eleven as 
having gone to the appointed mountain, but the solemn character of the twice- 
repeated promise (see p. 352, note 2) on the morning of the resurrection, com- 
bined with the fact that our Lord had appeared twice previously to the collected 
Apostles, renders it highly probable that the term was here not intended to be 
understood as exclusive. 

2 The statement that “‘some doubted,” though strongly urged by Meyer and 
others (comp. Winer, Gr. § 17.2, p. 96) as referring to the Apostles, is far more 
reasonably referred to others who were with them. Though it cannot perhaps 
positively be asserted that St. Matthew must have used of wey —oi δὲ if he had 
meant to indicate that some few of the Apostles doubted, yet it seems natural to 
suppose that some very explicit form of expression (6. g., τινὲς ἐξ αὐτῶν) would 
certainly have been selected to mark a fact in itself so unlikely (even if we con- 
fine ourselves to St. Matthew’s Gospel) as the doubting of some of the eleven 
while the rest were sufficiently persuaded to worship. If we admit that the 
events specified by St. John, ch. xx. 19—29, preceded, then the supposition that 
the doubters were Apostles seems plainly preposterous. See Stier, Disc. of our 
Lord, Vol. viii. p. 280 (Clark). The assumption of Miller and others that the 
doubting only lasted till the Lord came nearer (7poceAN@y, ver. 18) is precarious, 
as no hint of this is contained in the words. 


Lecr. VII. THE FORTY DAYS. 369 


hour when His mediatorial kingdom shall be merged in 
the eternity of His everlasting reign.' 

One further and last interview is yet to be vouchsafed, 
and of that a holier mountain even than that 
of the Beatitudes is to be the scene and the ἀΖ7Γ6 forts As 
witness. Warned, it may be, by the Lord 
Himself, or attracted thither by the near approach of the 
Pentecost,’ the Apostles and those with them return to 
Jerusalem, their hearts full of mighty presentiments and 
exalted hopes. Yet again they see their Mas- 
ter in the neighborhood of the Holy City; yet ,,©m- ™emm 
again they hear from those divine lips fuller 
and more precise instructions;* they are taught to gaze 


1 Our own hopes of the future, as Bp. Pearson has well observed, confirm our 
belief in οὐχ, Redeemer’s eternal reign: ‘‘ He hath promised to make us kings 
and priests, which honor we expect in heaven, believing we shall reign with 
Him forever, and therefore forever must believe Him King. ‘The kingdoms of 
this world are become the kingdoms of the [our] Lord, and of His Christ, and 
He shall reign for ever and ever’ (Rev. xi. 15), not only to the modificated 
eternity of His mediatorship, so long as there shall be need of regal power to 
subdue the enemies of God’s elect; but also to the complete eternity of the dura- 
tion of His humanity, which for the future is coéternal to His divinity.” — Zxpos. 
of Creed, Art. V1. Vol. ii. p. 334 sq. (ed. Burton). 

2 Some difficulties that have been felt in the change of place in reference to 
the earlier and later appearances of our Lord will be modified if we remember 
that the period we are considering was bounded by two festivals, which would 
of themselves involve journeyings to and from Judza. At first the disciples are 
found at Jerusalem, whither they had gone with their Lord to the feast of the 
Passover. A few days after the conclusion of the feast they leave the city, and, 
in obedience to their Lord’s command, go to Galilee. After the solemn appear- 
ance vouchsafed to them in that country, on the appointed mountain, probably 
towards the close of the forty days, they naturally go up to Jerusalem to cele- 
brate the Pentecost. In the neighborhood of-that city they see our Lord for the 
last time (Luke xxiy. 44 sq.), but whether unexpectedly or otherwise we cannot 
at all determine. 

3 It seems not only perfectly reasonable to suppose that Luke xxiv. 44 sq. is to 
be regarded as on the same day with Luke xxiv. 50—53, but right to deem it 
actually proved by the opening verses of Acts, ch.i. The command to remain 
in Jerusalem must, according to Acts i. 4,5, be placed a few days before the 
Pentecost: when we meet them with the same command in Luke xxiv. 49, are 
we to believe that the same writer is so inconsistent with himself as to imply 
that it was spoken six weeks before that festival? See Wieseler, Chron. Synops. 
Ῥ. 4285 sq. The insinuation of Meyer (ib. Luc. p. 511; see also p. 514), that St. 
Luke followed one traditionary account of the ascension in his Gospel and 
another in the Acts, is a truly hopeless way of avoiding the force of a very just 
and very reasonable inference. 


510 THE FORTY DAYS. Lect. ὙΠ." 


backward down the great vistas of the prophetic Scrip- 
tures, to understand and to believe. Again, 


Ver. 44. : 

Ἧς too, they hear transcendent promises, prom- 
er. 45. - : : : 

cr. ises of gifts and blessings now exceeding 


nigh, but even yet they partially misunder- 
stand, and vaguely question.’ Such inquiries, however, are 
solemnly silenced; they are to be the Lord’s 
witnesses; they are not to expect an earthly 
kingdom, but to prepare others for a heavenly kingdom. 
They marvel and they follow.?...They now 
stand on the mountain down which the tri- 
umphal entry had swept into the earthly Jerusalem, and 
from which the triumphal entry into the heavenly Jeru- 
salem, and the celestial realms beyond,® shall be beheld 
by the same chosen witnesses. They follow their Lord 
even to the borders of the district of Bethany,* and then, 
even while His uplifted hands are confirming with a bless- 


Ver. 7. 


Ver. 7. 


1 For some comments on the nature of the expectations of the Jews in refer- 
ence to the Messiah’s reign, see Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr. in Act. i.6. The supposi- 
tion, however, of this able expositor, that the question of the Apostles involved 
a kind of deprecation of the present establishment of such a kingdom (‘‘ an jam, 
Domine regnum iis restitues, qui te sic tractarunt?*’) is neither probable nor in 
accordance with the context. 

2 The term ἐξήγαγεν (Luke xxiv. 50) refers to the scene of the commencement 
of this interview, from which our Lord conducted His disciples towards Beth- 
any. This may have been either in the neighborhood of the city, or more proba- 
bly in the city; perhaps in the same room, with its closed doors, where the Lord 
had already appeared twice before (John xx. 19, 26). 

3 Comp. Heb. iv. 14, διεληλυϑότα τοὺς οὐρανούς, where there seems no reason 
to consider the plural as without its proper force, especially when compared 
with Eph. iv. 10, 6 ἀναβὰς ὑπερώνω πάντῶν τῶν οὐράνων : ‘ Whatsoever 
heaven there is higher than all the rest which are called heavens, whatsoever 
sanctuary is holier than all which are called holies, whatsoever place is of great- 
est dignity in all those courts above, into that place did He ascend, where, in 
the splendor of His deity, He was before He took upon Him our humanity.” — 
Pearson, Expos. of Creed, Art. V1. Vol. ii. p. 820 (ed. Burton). 

4 There seems no sufficient reason for calling in question the ancient tradition 
that our Lord ascended from the Mount of Olives. The usual arguments, 
founded on the ἕως eis βηϑανίαν of Luke xxiv. 50 (Robinson, Palest. Vol. i. pp. 
416) are not by any means conclusive, as it seems fairly probable that the words 
are not to be limited to the actual village, but generally referred to the brow or 
side of the hill, where the road strikes downward to Bethany. Comp. Acts i. 12, 
and see Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr. in Luc. xxiv. 50, Meyer, wb. Apostelgesch. i. 12, 
Williams, Holy City, Vol. ii. p. 440 sq. 


Lect. VILL THE FORTY DAYS. oe 


ing the words of the last promise, they behold Him part- 
ing from them, rising from Olivet higher and 
yet higher, still rising and still blessing, until 
the cloud? receives Him from their sight, 
and angelic voices address to them those words of mingled 
warning, consolation, and prophecy, “ Why stand ye gaz- 
ing up into heaven? This same Jesus which is taken up 
from you into heaven, shall so come in like 
manner as ye have seen Him go into heaven.” 
Even so, come, Lord Jesus; come quickly. 
Amen. 

And now let us bring these meditations to their close, 
yet not without the expression of an earnest 
hope that they may have in some degree 
tended to remove a few of the doubts and difficulties, which 
even the sober and the thoughtful have sometimes felt with 
regard to the connection of this portion of the Evangelical 
history.2. Above all things, may it have been granted to 


Luke xxiv. 51. 
Acts i. 9. 


Ver. 11. 
Rev. xxii. 20. 


Conclusion. 


1 The cloud in which our Redeemer ascended was not only, as Stier suggests, 
typical of that cloud in which He will visibly return (ἐν νεφέλῃ, Luke xxi. 27), 
but also directs the thought to the mystery of the assumption of the faithful 
servants of Christ who at His second coming will be caught up “‘in clouds” 
(ev νεφέλαις, 1 Thess. iv. 17) to meet their Lord in the air. Compare Lect. 1v. 
p. 217, note 1. It may be remarked further that if the words ἀνεφέρετο εἰς τὸν 
οὐρανὸν (Luke xxiv. 51) be received as genuine, of which, supported as they are 
by external authority, there can be no reasonable doubt (Tisch. rejects them on 
most insufficient grounds), we have the gradual ascent upwards (ἀνεφέρετο, 
imperf.) vividly put before us: the Lord is parted from His disciples, and is 
beheld being borne upwards, till the cloud at length intercepts Him from the 
view of the watchers beneath. 

2If the views advanced in the preceding pages be accepted, it would seem 
that in the Gospels we have in all notices of nine appearances of our Lord after 
His resurrection; (1) to Mary Magdalene; (2) to the other ministering women; (3) 
to the two disciples journeying to Emmaus; (4) to St. Peter; (5) to the ten Apos- 
tles; (6) to the eleven Apostles; (7) to seven Apostles by the sea of Tiberias; (8) 
to the eleven Apostles, and probably many others, on the appointed mountain; 
(9) to the Apostles in or near Jerusalem, immediately previous to the ascension. 
Besides these, we learn from St. Paul (10) that an appearance of our Lord was 
vouchsafed to James (1 Cor. xv. 7). This, if we conceive the passage to be writ- 
ten with reference to chronological order, would seem to have been shortly 
after the appearance to the five hundred brethren. The agreement of this 
enumeration of St. Paul with the record of the appearances to men, as recorded 
in the Gospels, is very striking, and has been rightly put forward by Wieseler, 
Chron. Synops. p. 419sq. Comp. Ebrard, Kritik der Ev. Gesch. § 118, p. 599. 


912 THE FORTY DAYS. Lecr. VIU. 


these humble words that they may have brought home to 
those who have dwelt on them the living reality of the mys- 
teries of these Forty Days, the plain and objective truth of 
the Lord’s appearances on earth after His resurrection, and 
the actual, visible, and bodily nature of His ascension. 
On such truths rest the surest consolations of the present; 
on such the holiest hopes of the future. O, may God’s 
Spirit, in these latter days of scepticism and incredulity, 
move the hearts of His ministers and His people to hold 
more truly and tenaciously that living truth, which alone 
rests for its basis on the literal truth of the resurrection 
and ascension of our Lord, — that truth which an Apos- 


1 On this subject it is painful to feel how much half-belief prevails at the 
present day, even among those expositors of Scripture who have in other 
respects some claim on our attention. See, for instance, the remarks of Meyer, 
ub Luc. p. 514 sq. (ed. 3). The fact itself is not questioned, nay, even the exalta- 
tion of the Lord’s glorified body is admitted; but the distinct statements of one 
Evangelist, and the implied statements of a second (Mark xvi. 19), that this 
exaltation took place visibly, and before the eyes of appointed witnesses, is flatly 
denied. Why so, we ask, when so much is, as it ought to be, accepted as true? 
For an answer we are referred to the silence of the two Apostolical Evangelists. 
See Meyer, loc. cit. p. 515 sq. But even if we concede such a silence, which, 
indeed, we need not concede (what meaning, for instance, could St. John have 
assigned to our Lord’s words, ch. vi. 62, if he had not seen how they were ful- 
filled?),— conceding it, however, for the sake of our argument, what are we to 
say of a mode of criticism which, in a history where three out of the four 
writers of it are almost avowedly selective, is prepared to reject a miracle when- 
ever two out of four alone relate it? If it be replied that this is no common 
miracle, but, like the resurrection, forms an epoch in our Lord’s life of the high- 
est importance, the rejoinder seems as final as it is true, that the sacred writers 
viewed the ascension as a necessary part and sequel of the resurrection, and 
that it is only the unsound theology of later times that has sought to separate 
them. See above, p. 337, and for further comments, see Olshausen, Commentary, 
Vol. iv. p. 353 sq., Lange, Leben Jesu, τι. 8. 10, Part 111. p. 1760 sq., Ebrard, Krit. 
der Ev. Gesch. § 118. 4, p. 599 sq. 

2 Well and wisely has Bp. Pearson dwelt upon that truth to which the ancient 
writers have invariably given such prominence when treating upon the ascen- 
sion, viz., that the bodily ascension of our Lord into heaven is the strongest 
corroboration of our own hope of ascending thither. See xpos. of Creed, Art. 
vi. Vol. i. p. 821 (ed. Burton). That ‘‘ where the Head is gone there the mem- 
bers may hope to follow,” is the inference which all sound expositors have 
drawn, alike from the nature of our union with our Lord, and from the eternal 
truth that He has vouchsafed in His own person to take our glorified humanity 
to His Father’s throne. Compare Augustine, Serm. COLXIII. 3, Vol. v. p. 1210 
(ed. Migné), and a sound sermon by Beveridge, Serm. LXXvI. Vol. iii. p. 482 sq. 
(A-C. L.). 


Lecr. VIIL. THE FORTY DAYS. 373 


tle has declared to us,—even that our Master has raised 
us with Himself and made us in spirit ascend 
with Himself to His Father’s kingdom, and 
sit there the partakers of His glory and His blessedness.* 
Where the Head is, even there has He solemnly assured us 
the true members now are in spirit. We are already 
seated there in Him, — that is the support and consolation 
of the present; we shall hereafter be made to sit there by 
Him, not in spirit only, but in our glorified human nature, 
—that is the hope and joy of the future.’ 

Present and future are alike bound up in our belief of 
our Master’s resurrection and ascension; and dreary indeed 
must this present be, and gloomy and clouded that future, 
if our belief in our risen and our ascended Lord be uncer- 
tain, partial, or precarious. We may think, perchance, that 
we are free to speculate, to poise historical credibilities, to 
boast the liberty of a suspended assent to what seems all 
too objective and material for the falsely spiritualizing ten- 
dencies of the age in which we live? We may think so 


Eph. ii. 6. 


1 No words can be more distinct than those which the Apostle uses in the 
passage above referred to, — καὶ συνήγειρεν καὶ συνεκάδϑισεν ἐν Tots ἐπουρανίοις 
(Eph. ii. 6). Though the passage, considered in one sense, may refer to what is 
yet future, yet in another and a spiritual sense, it is eternally true that the faith- 
ful believer in Jesus Christ has even now been raised with His Lord, and in 
spirit made to sit with Him and in Him in the realms of His blessedness and 
glory; τῆς κεφαλῆς καϑεζομένης καὶ τὸ σῶμα cuyKddsyntar διὸ ἐπήγαγεν ἐν 
Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. Chrysost. in ἴοο. See also Commentary on Eph. p. 88 (ed. 2). 

2 “Even now we sit there in Him, and shall sit there with Him in the end. So 
he promiseth, in express terms, that ‘we shall sit with Him in His throne’ 
(Rev. iii. 21), as He doth in His Father’s. And so, not in the throne will he be 
above us, but only that He in the midst, and we on His right hand.’ — An- 
drewes, Serm. vil. Vol. i. p. 115(A.-C. L.). 

3 It is, alas! not only the heretics of the past (see Augustine, de Her. cap. 59, 
Vol. viii. p. 41, Theodoret, Heret. Fab. 1.19) who have felt and expressed diffi- 
culties on the subject of our Lord’s body being taken up into heaven. Modern 
writers, who on other points have shown themselves sound and thoughtful 
expositors of Scripture, have here not scrupled to use language sadly analogous 
to the language of the past, and have sought for imaginary places where they 
might assume that the “final residuum of the corporeity” of the Lord was 
deposited on His ascent to the Father. See the references in Stier, Disc. of our 
Lord, Vol. viii. p. 442 (Clark), and on the subject generally, Augustine, Epist. 
cov. Vol. ii. p. 942 sq., towhich add the wise caution, de Fide et Symb. cap. 6, 
Vol. vi. p. 188 (ed. Migné). 


32 


914 THE FORTY DAYS. Lecr. VIII. 


now; but when the end draws near, when sorrows break 
us, when age weakens, when darkness begins to close 
around us, where will all such license of thought be, and 
what will it availus? How shall dust and ashes hope to 
ascend into the heaven of heavens, if it cannot feel with 
all the fulness of conviction that One who was bone of 
our bone and flesh of our flesh has entered those realms 
before us, and has taken up our very nature, glorified and 
beautified, to the right hand of the everlasting Father ?? 

May, then, the belief in the resurrection and in all its 
attendant mysteries become in the heart of every one 
whose eye may fall on these concluding words of an ear- 
nest, though, God knoweth, poor and weak effort to set 
forth His truth, ever truer and ever fresher. May it call 
up our thoughts and affections to His throne, 
ever teaching us to ascend heavenward in 
soul and spirit now, to learn the path, and to know the 
way, that so we may ascend in body, soul, and spirit here- 
after; yea, and not ascend only, but abide there with Him 
forevermore, redeemed, justified, sanctified, glorified, the 
bidden and welcome guests at the marriage- 
supper of the Lamb, the-admitted inheritors 
of the kingdom prepared for us from the 
foundation of the world. 


Col. iti. 2. 


Rev. xix. 9. 


Hatt. xxv. 34, 


1To none of the great truths relating to the two natures of our Lord is it 
more necessary to adhere firmly in the present age than to this. A hearty belief 
in the literal and local ascent of our Lord’s humanity into the heavens is in 
itself a belief in the whole mystery of the union of the Godhead and Manhood. 
If, as has been truly said, in His death our Lord has assured us of His human- 
ity, and in His resurrection has demonstrated His divinity (Pearson, Creed, Vol. 
i. p. 818, ed. Burton), most surely in His ascension has He displayed both. There 
we see, as it were, in one what in other places our imperfect nature rarely ena- 
bles us to contemplate otherwise than under separate relations. In that last 
scene we realize all,—the human, the divine, and the most complete manifesta- 
tion of their union. It is more as a man that we see Him leading His disciples 
out of Jerusalem, and walking, for the last time, up the slopes of Olivet; it is 
more as God that, with the eye of faith, we behold Him taking His seat on His 
Father’s throne; it is, however, as the God-man in its truest aspects that we 
gaze on Him ascending, flesh of our flesh, and yet God blessed forever, —man 
in the form that rises, God in the power that bears Him to His Father’s throne: 
“corpus levatum est in colum illo levante qui ascendit.” — August. de Agon. 
Chr. 25, Vol. vi. p. 304. 


Lect. VII. THE FORTY DAYS. 375 


O holy Jesus,’ who for our sakes didst suffer incompara- 
ble anguish and pains, commensurate to thy love and our 
miseries, which were infinite, that thou mightest purchase 
for us blessings upon earth and an inheritance in heaven, 
dispose us by love, thankfulness, humility, and obedience, 
to receive all the benefit of thy passion, granting unto 
us and thy whole Church remission of all our sins, in- 
tegrity of mind, health of body, competent maintenance, 
peace in our days, a temperate air, fruitfulness of the earth, 
unity and integrity of faith, extirpation of heresies, recon- 
cilement of schisms, and destruction of all wicked counsels 
intended against us. Multiply thy blessings upon us, holy 
Jesus: increase in us true religion, sincere and actual devo- 
tion in our prayers, patience in troubles, and whatsoever 
is necessary to our soul’s health, or conducing to thy glory. 
Amen. 


1 This beautiful and catholic prayer is taken from Bp. Jeremy Taylor’s Life of 
Christ, 111. 15, Vol. i. p. 840 (Lond. 1886). 


inte 


ὑπὸ 


4 ἥ ; ; (wis ὸ 
Ἅ ὸ ; er? ae 2 . tha ie. wife 
pan } te foro 


it «ὉΥΘΤΕ ra a 
Pe ; aes) ἀκηα μι Ὁ mite iene % 
Γ΄. αφέλοων αὐ αἰ εωπαχαϊην ἡ ις τον των +> . 
ms ἊΝ * ses | a ow? jai ob digas baure a ἐξ ἮΝ ainda ἘΝ ἣν ἃ μη 


Bee MNO AENEAN χάνω IE ER A ER, ΨΗΣ i ei or EY 
ee “aibeto: τοὺς of Asseeatpactiad foe ee enhopirihcermtak RMR ΄ ὦ 
tats Sewe at yla μ᾿ πα τὴν ΜΝ ἵν ἌΝ : ᾿ 

ies Seay ἐν bed υ ee »" ἐ . : ; 

i‘ ree δ, 20 id ae isin vannesis aud sar a 

=, Ay ORB ia Peat 

Veh te OE: εἶ wnt “arb 96 ‘patina exe “dolly. τ 
ROE ania 3 S98ti0g πὐλααϑουθένλσμι, anes : 
aie paises ἧι axle: wilt ὁ si, pee 
sie τὸν ἐν ΠΣ ἧς οἰκί a ἡ than") hy Fm δ ΣΝ ott. ot ΝΥ ascaiger, aa Η 


ΤΑ͂Σ “LOE urate χὐὶ pe slg ΘΟ stots ἜΣ ὗ tere asta: te at fact ad! Fae hs 
" ΠΑ ΟΣ ΠῚ ων πααλυκ ἐκ 
ΜΝ Ἦν ‘ae Sgt tected ovasee 0 oe pe 


Wh: FF Sanaa sine jue Nl, Aw 


Ieatee Be sap εύμεσπηδ  νμλληψδσνα a ae Ai ἡ 
δυρμδορ ats gusterucaners3 | arouse τ SHR No, Latkt 
i ictesals ἜΣΗΙ Ve ite sonia, ‘vei dehow Peas ἢ 
atu havo oe wiki enbsioniev 8 Pronk ΡΥ hang sweeter ; 
; oat to ἀημιο feat: | κατα Ὁ a BIRO ee 
se OY eeihe td more? GY αὐ Rating ἡ ; 
καὶ on i fesingoly ray ψέταν reTie nw ttle neoltovatsn τι bie 
ΒΟΡΨΩΝ eer αἱ to some!” “anoa ἘΣΣῚ 
ΤῊΝ 1} 80 NG eon staagge evita 
18 Bio trast! whew stad wr obqmrsd wt Op HEE Hy 
Laat γὼ ὠρϑήος ΣΝ ron Κ'αι} ΩΝ ge ΤΟΥ a 
᾿ Ἔλα σης bee ἐν \ wbetiiny ταν err 
; ware asha & ee Bore 
Pine pty ἡ ἐν 


uation aa 


nema Ὁ 


3 tala, δ, WB δὴ ἔρνος ὧν 


ADULTERY, woman taken in, 232; nar- 
rative not written by St. John, 232, 
m.; probable place in the Gospel 
history, 281; nature of the strata- 
gem, 282; punishment of, 282 n. 

AGONY IN THE GARDEN, 297; nature 
of the deprecatory prayer, 297 n.; 
ministry of the angel, 298 n. 

ALPHAUS, identical with Clopas, 101 ἡ. 

ANGELS, 57; number of, at the sepul- 
chre, 343 ».; significant attitude, 
346 n. 

Anna, the prophetess, 76. 

Annas, short history of, 300 .; our 
Lord’s examination before, 300. 

ANTONIA, tower of, 275 n. 

APOCRYPHAL INFANCIES, 99. 

APOSTLES, sending forth of, 182; dura- 
tion of their circuit, 182 n.; slowness 
of to believe in resurrection, 349. 

APPEARANCES, our Lord’s to Mary 
Magdalene, 346; to the other minis- 
tering women, 350; to the two disci- 
ples, 352; to the ten Apostles, 357; 
to St. Peter, 357 πω; to the eleven 
Apostles, 361; to disciples on the lake 
of Gennesareth, 362; to the five hun- 
dred brethren, 367; last, previous to 
ascension, 369. 

ASCENSION, festival of, 338 .; descrip- 
tion of, 870-71; probable place of, 
870 n.; literal and local, 372 n.; half- 
belief in the doctrine of, 372 .; great 
importance of a right belief in, ἐδ. 

ATONEMENT, its connection with our 
Lord’s divinity, 21 ».; hortatory com- 
ments on, 929. 


Baptism, our Lord’s, 110; probable 
date of, 106 n.; probable locality of, 
108 n. 


32* . 


BARABBAS, 811 n.; origin of custom 
which led to his escape, 312. 

BEEROTH, 94. 

BretHany, date of our Lord’s last ar- 
rival at, 252 n.; supper at, 257; posi- 
tion of, 258 n.; roads from to Jerusa- 
lem, 260 7. 

BETHESDA, pool of, 186 ”.; etymology 
of, 136 7. 

BETHABARA, 108 7., 240 7. 

BETHLEHEM, 70 2. 

BETHPHAGE, probable site of, 260 n. 

BETHSAIDA-JULIAS, 184 n.; two places 
of that name, 194 n. 

BETRAYAL of our Lord, 299; circum- 
stances which immediately followed, 
800. 

Brinpin@ and loosing, power of, 357 7., 
360 τ. 

BRETHREN of our Lord, 100 n.; im- 
portunity of and imperfect faith, 227. 


CAHSAREA PHILIPPI, 208 n.; events 
which took place in its vicinity, 209. 
CAIAPHAS, prophecy of, 246 .; ex- 
amination of our Lord, 304. 

Cana, 117 n.; miracle at, 117. 

CANTICLES in Luke i., 64; inspiration 
and characteristics of, 64. 

CAPERNAUM, Site of, 121 ”.; nobleman 
of, 182. 

Circuits, our Lord’s, round Galilee, 
161 n.; length of, 174 n. 

CIVILIZATION, theories of, 22 n. 

CHRIST, early development of, 90; ad- 
vance of in wisdom, 91 7.; supposed 
outward appearance of, 92; visit of 
to temple when twelve years old, 93; 
youth of, 97; reserve hereon of the 
Evangelists, 100; spiritual and mental 
development of, 102; a reader of the 


378 INDEX. 


heart, 125 n.; reception of his teach- 
ing, 148 n.; date of his return to 
Galilee, 144 n.; duration of ministry, 
145 n.; visit to Jerusalem at Feast of 
Tabernacles, 226; deportment of be- 
fore his judges, 808 ».; nature of last 
agonies, 821; last words on the cross, 
322 n.; nature of death, 326 .; burial 
of, 827; recognition of not always 
permitted after the resurrection, 346 
n.; how this is to be explained, 355; 
appearance of after resurrection 
somewhat changed, 355 2.; bodily 
nature of his ascension, 371; his 
eternal reign, 369 7. 

CLEOPAS, 353 7. 

CLopas, wife of, 319 n. 

CLOTHES, casting down of, 262 1x.; 
rending of, 305 7. 


FIG-TREE, cursing of, 267; objections 
urged against, 268 n. 

FisH, constellation of, 79 ἢ. 

FIVE THOUSAND, feeding of, 184. 

FLIGHT INTO E@yPprt, date of, and du- 
ration of stay, 85 7. 

FOUR THOUSAND, feeding of, 205; site 
of the miracle, 205 n. 


GABBATHA, 812 n. 

GALILEE, divisions of, 187 n.; Christ’s 
appearances in, 337 n.; the mountain 
in, where probably situated, 367 n. 

GENEALOGIES, comments on, 99 ἢ. 

GENNESARETH, lake of, storms on, 
177 n. 

GENNESARETH, plain of, 155 ἡ. 

GERGESA, probable site of, 178 n. 

| GETHSEMANE, 296 2. 

CocK-cRoWING, 302 n. | GoLeorTHA, site of, 817 n.; meaning of 

COINCIDENCES, verbal, in the four Gos- | the term, ib. 
pels, 255 n. GOSPEL HISTORY, mode of studying, 

Corn, rubbing ears of, 166 n. 23 n. 

Cross, form of, 818 n. GOSPELS, inspiration of, 27 ».; har- 
monies of, 81 .; correct principles 
of a harmony of, 34; apocryphal, 
256 n.; characteristics of contrasted 
and compared, 46 n.; discrepancies 
of unduly exaggerated, 50 7. 

GRAVE-CLOTHES, position of, in the 
sepulchre, 345 n. 

GREEKS, petition of, to see our Lord, 
286 7. 

GUARDS, bribery of, 353. 


DALMANUTHA, site of, 207 n. 

DARKNESS, supernatural, at the cruci- 
fixion, 320 n. 

DEcAPOLIS, confederation of, 192 n. 

DEDICATION, feast of, 237 n. 

Drmoni4cs, healing of, how charac- 
terized, 156 n.; boy, healing of, 211; 
Gergesene, 178. 

DIsciPLgs, first that joined our Lord, 
117 n.; the two journeying to Em- 
maus, 353 7. 

Discourses of our Lord, their order 
coubtful, 24 ».; delivered in the syn- 
agogue at Capernaum, 197 n.; our 
Lord’s last, 295 n. 

Doctors, Jewish, names of those alive 
when our Lord was twelve years old, 
96. 


HARMONISTS, errors of, 32. 

HARVEST, usual time of, 107 7. 

HEROD THE GREAT, death of, 81 n.; 
barbarities of, 83 7. 

Hrrop ANTIPAS, character of, 201 ἢ. ; 
dismissal of our Lord to, 310; wicked 
levity of, 810 ».; mockery of our 
Lord, ἐδ. 

HERODIANS, 168 n., 274 2. 

HILLEL, school of, 249 2. 

HoLty Guost, blasphemy against, 176 
n.; gift of to the Apostles, 357 n., 
361 2. 


EASTERN WORLD, expectations of, 55 n. 

EMMAUS, position of, 353 n.; distance 
of from Jerusalem, 354 n. 

EPHRAIM, site of, 246 2. 

ESsSENE TEACHING, 108. 

EvcHARIST, institution of, 294; proba- 
bly not partaken of by Judas, 294 n. 

EUSEBIUS, on the relations of the four 
Gospels, 146. 


INNOCENTS, murder of, 83; silence 
hereon of Josephus, 83. 

*Iovdaiot, meaning of the term in St. 
John, 115 7., 187 n. 


INDEX. - 


JACOB'S WELL, 129 n. 

JAIRUS’ DAUGHTER, healing of, 180. 

JERUSALEM, our Lord’s address to, 
241 n.; view of from Olivet, 262 n.; 
appearance of at Passover, 263 n.; 
probable numbers assembled at, 20. ; 
our Lord’s apostrophe to, 241 2., 
284. 

JERICHO, our Lord’s visit to, 251; road 
from to Jerusalem, 257 n. 

JOHN THE Baptist, 104; date of com- 
mencement of his ministry, 104 7.; 
its effects, 105; deputation of San- 
hedrin to, 115; number of his disci- 
ples, 126 n.; date of captivity of, 127 
m.; message of inquiry to our Lord, 
178; death of, when, 183 n. 

JouN, St., Gospel of, 30; character of, 
229 2., 250 m.; difference of from that 
of St. Peter, 364 .; visit of to the 
sepulchre, 344; external characteris- 
tics of, 30 n.; individuality of, 51; 
genuineness of chap. xxi., 338 . 

JOSEPH OF ARIMATHEA, 326. 

JOURNEYS, last three of our Lord to 
Jerusalem, 224; their probable dates 
and durations, 225 n. 

JuDA, city of, 61. 

JuDAS, death of, 307 n.; sin of, 807 n. 


LAZARUS, sickness of, and death, 245; 
raising of, 246 ”.; effect produced by 
the miracle, 245. 

Lzxes, breaking of, 325 7. 

LEVI, same as Matthew, 164 n.; feast 
in his house, ἐδ. 

LIFE OF CHRIST, history of, a history 
of redemption, 26. 

Loins, cloth bound round, at the cru- 
cifixion, 318 n. 

LuKE, St., Gospel of, its external char- 
acteristics, 29 n.; individuality of, 
41; universality of, 42 n.; peculiarity 
of the portion ch. xi. 51—xviii. 14, 
219 n., 222 n. 

LUTHARDT, Essay on St. John’s Gos- 
pel, 44 n. 


MACHZRUS, site of, 128 n. 

MAGDALA, site of, 207 n. 

Maar, adoration of, 77; country of, 77; 
ground of their expectations, 78 n.; 
nature of their expectations, 80 n. 


879 


MARE, St., identical with John Mark, 
88 n.; Gospel of, its external charac- 
teristics, 29; written under the guid- 
ance of St. Peter, 29 n., 212 ».; in- 
dividuality of, 87; graphic character 
of, 88; genuineness of concluding 
verses, 40 ., 344 n. 

MARRIAGE-FEASTS, customs ait 118 n. 

Mary MAGDALENE, visit of to the 
sepulchre, 341 ”.; appearance of our 
Lord to, 346-7. 

MATTHEW, St., Gospel of, its external 
characteristics, 28; individuality of, 
55; originally written in Hebrew, 
150 2.; genuineness of first two chap- 
ters of, 65 .; order of incidents not 
exact, 148 n.,151”.; howthis is to be 
accounted for, 150. 

MESSAGES, divine, to Josephand Mary, 
65. 

MIRACULOUS CONCEPTION, dignity of, 
52; mystery of, 7b.; narrative of, 56; 
not noticed by St. John, 52. 

Ministry, our Lord’s, duration of, 
145 1. 

Mount, sermon on the, 169; scene of, 
169 2. 


NAIN, site of, 172 n. 

NATIVITY, circumstances of, 69; exact 
locality of, 69 n.; date of, 70 n. 

NAZARETH, description of, 103 n.; ill 
repute of, 57 n.; our Lord’s first 
preaching at, 152; second visit to, 
181. 

NIcopEMvs, history of, 124 n.; dis- 
course of our Lord with, 124; bold- 
ness and piety of at our Lord’s burial, 
827. 


PARABLES, of sons sent into vineyard, 
273 n.; of wicked husbandmen, 7b.; 
collection of, by St. Matthew, 35 n. 

PARALYTIO, healing of, 162. 

PILATE, Official character of, 274 n.; 
general character of, 315 n.; our 
Lord’s first appearance before, 307; 
second ditto, 311; enmity with Herod, 
810 n.; awe felt by towards our 
Lord, 315 n.; fate of, 316 n. 

PINNACLE OF THE TEMPLE, 115. 

PRESENTATION IN TEMPLE, 78. 

PRECEPTS, reception of, 170. 


380 : 


PRECIPITATION, Mount of, 170 7. 

PorTENTS, at our Lord’s death, 323. 

PRocuRATORS, residence of, at Jeru- 
salem, 306 7. 

PROPHECIES, our Lord’s last, 289 n. 

PROTEVANGELIUM JACOBI, narrative 
of Nativity, 69 2. 

PUBERTY, age of, 93 n. 

PUBLICANS, 35 7. 

Purim, feast of, our Lord’s visit to 
Jerusalem at, 183; observances at, 
134 n. 

PURIFICATION, time of, 73 n. 

PETER, St., confession of, 198 n.; three 
denials of our Lord, 302 n.; visit of 
to sepulchre, 344; character of as 
compared with that of St. John, 364 n. 


RESURRECTION, Christ’s, a pledge of 
ours, 332 .; objections to doctrine 
of, 884 ».; number of the accounts 
of, 334 n.; differences in the incidents 
related, 335; exact time of, 340 n. 

RESURRECTION-BODY, nature of our 
Lord’s, 333 n.; glorification of, per- 
haps progressive, 356 n., 866 n. 

Roaps, from Judza to Galilee, 121 n. 

Roors, nature of, 163 2. 


SABBATH, observance of, 137; second- 
first, 165 .; miracles performed on, 
168 n., 237 n. 

SABBATH-DAY’S JOURNEY, 259 n. 

SADDUCEES, errors of, 278 n.; accepted 
other parts of Scripture beside Pen- 
tateuch, 279 n. 

SAINTS, resurrection of, at our Lord’s 
death, 324 n. 

SALIM, site of, 126 n. 

SAMARIA, our Lord’s first journey 
through, 129; second journey through, 
228. 

SAMARITAN WOMAN, our Lord’s dis- 
course with, 129. 

SAMARITANS, faith of, 1380; expectation 
of a Messiah, 130 n. 

SANHEDRIN, meeting of, called by 
Herod, 81 n.; first public manifesta- 
tion of their designs, 231; component 
parts of, 272 n.; lost the power of 
life and death, 282 ».; place of meet- 
ing, 303 n.; our Lord’s examination 
before, 302. 


INDEX. 


SCAPE-GOAT, supposed reference to, 
814 n. 

ScRIBES, from Jerusalem, 162 n. 

SCRIPTURE, inspiration of, 21 n. 

Srcts, Jewish, some characteristics of, 
72 ἢ. 

SEVENTY DISCIPLES, mission of, 285 n. 

SHAMMAI, school of, 249 2. 

SHEKEL, half, annual payment of, 
218 n. 

SHEPHERDS, announcement to, 71. 

Spon, probably visited by our Lord, 
203, 215 n. 

SILOAM, well of, 231 η. 

SIMEON, 74 ».; prophetic address of, 
75 Ἢ. 

Simon the leper, 258 7. 

SIMON OF CYRENE, 3818 n. 

SOLOMON’sS PoRcH, 288 n. 

Son oF Gop, 119 ».; meaning of the 
‘title, 198 n., 234 ., 288 n., 259 n., 804 n. 

Sosroscu, 82 n. 

SOUL, meaning of the term, 114 n. 

SPIRIT, meaning of the term, 114 n. 

STAR OF THE EAST, 78; date of ap- 
pearance, 79 n. 

STONE, great, rolled against the door 
of the sepulchre, 328 n., 340 n. 

Storm, stilling of, 195 n. 

SUFFERINGS, our Lord’s predictions of 
his own, 256 n. 

SupPPER, last, celebration of, 291; a 
paschal supper, but not on Nisan 14, 
292 n.; order of incidents, 293 n. 

SwEAT, bloody, nature of, 298 n. 

SwIngE, destruction of, 179 n. 

SYcHAR, 129 n. 

SYNAGOGUE, service of, 153 n., 158 n 

SYROPHG@NICIAN WOMAN, 202 n. 


TABIGA, a suburb of Capernaum, 155 
n., 158 n. 

TAXING, under Quirinus, 66; Roman in 
origin, Jewish in form, 68. 

TEMPLE, first cleansing of, 122; second 
cleansing of, 266; veil of, 828 n. 

TEMPTATION, scene of, 110 m.; no 
vision, 111; an assault from without, 
112; addressed to the three parts of 
our nature, 113. 

Tuomas, St., disbelief of, 361; testi- 
mony of to our Lord’s divinity, 362 n 

THORNS, crown of, 314 τ. 


INDEX. 


Tomes, nature of, 327 n. 
TRANSFIGURATION, 210; 
scene of, 210 2. 
TREASURY, 285. 
TRIUMPHAL ENTRY, 259. 
TYRE, our Lord’s journey towards, 201. 


probable 


Virein Mary, probable authority for 
early portions of St. Luke’s Gospel, 
56 n.; legendary history of, 57 n.; 
relationship to Elizabeth, 60 m.; char- 
acter of, 60; journey of to Elizabeth, 
61; later residence of, 175 n. 


381 


WASHING OF HANDS, Pilate’s, 313 n. 

WIESELER (K.), value of his chrono- 
logical labors, 189 n., 225 n. 

WoMEN, court of, 286 n.; the minister- 
ing, 335 n.; visit of to the sepulchre, 
339. 

WORLD, state of at our Lord’s birth, 
547. 


ZACCHZUS, 251; desire of to see our 
Lord, 251 γ. 

ZEBEDEE, position of at Capernaum, 
156 n. 


382 INDEX. 


PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE 


EXPLAINED OR ILLUSTRATED. 


MICAH V.2,; +.» « ‘ - 82n. TEE χΥ.1,. : ° - 2438. 
Martz. ii. 2, ὦ BORO «FOE Ἐπ Dy AO wears Ps i. 
TER Pe . 2 ee i 82M. xxiv. 44, Sore Ὁ . 805 n. 
dis ABs} as οἰ δυο » Bhat. JOHN i.2R, .  . A Ὁ ie. 
ai Day otk ὩΣ penny 8 Be ae: ty ee eg ne ΤΣ 
ein. He, re Te deo a. Ghee as, ΡΣ ΣΝ 
mix. Ἢ - 4 . 248n. Ἱ 6, 45s eae eer ἢ 
xxii. 21, Sd Mar) pain ella Hi.) TD 5, of δυο act SYA RARER. 
SEVIG 28, ἀμὸν ὁ" paneer Bo Dboys ὅπ Way Sei ae BBB age 
xxvi. 45, ακῦτο πα AROS tae ἀνθ δ At ge Ban er eer ee 
ΣΕΥ, ers . 8485. ies pte . 126%. 
XXViii. 9, ° : . 861 2. ἷν.4,. ς 3 ey) aoe aie 
ΧΕΙ 17... Ε - 991. v.1, Ξ Ξ ᾿ anf Ops 
MARK i. 34, . Ε . 169 ἡ. ν.4,. ol ΕΣ odestta BBG tae 
VWi.D wants at ἐρττῤόννκ we Bim. vi. 560, Ὁ Ὲ Soe ts orga ar 
Yue 2a ΡΟ en, BS Ἢ: Wile aye eh Se) ee Ἴ" 
xi. 13, ° A - 267 n. ΝΟΣ, Ὁ Ξ 4 . 239 7. 
S108, 3 ἀπ ss oOo ). xii. 27, sg ee 
Speen es A tet) Sens aN Bale Oe a ce tte Ge eee 
i ΣΌΝ g / S xiii. 5, saya - 2267. 
xvi. 4, 5 ° - o4in. Vi. 2B - . 2967. 
KVieds .s A 3 . 848 n. mag ae Α - - ΘΒ, Δ: 
ἜΠΙΕΈ Δ ΔΙ ΕΝ tae pa Bi AY ua net Xviii. 24, <soubecud aor aaa 
i. 2, exerts εν bite cy ΔΘ xviii. 88, . . . 809”. 
18s nee cay ea Cet Yh eee δὺς ‘xin Ἢ, Le. πὸ ον 515: 
ii. 8, nt we uke bh spies mix Ickes sxoons. 1elem 
aires, ρμπῆρο ultra eS ihe SIs, Δ, ὦ δ tt Aloe. 
OS τυ ῶν. ape Si ee xx. 8, siedtan lg ea ΒΡυη: 
11. 44, . fs miei sana tn te ΕΣ: er te: fio ἐξ . 888 ἡ. 
BP, τ ὙΠ νὴ κ᾽ OD xx, 7; : δὰ OU SREB a8, 
TSO) vn oe ont © tndesncn tl ans ἘΣΘ 5 τ OR: 
ΓΆΡ ΘΑΑΝΤΗΣ eas - 106 n. Kui 22. αὐτοὶ να - 8672. 
iii. 23, . em ROS ἢ, EPH. ii. 6, ΥΥ eee ee 0. 
TY. 58. τ urate - » 18H. Cou. di. 15.) . oe. Baila. 
ix. 51,. . So ody ΘΕ 1 TuHEss. iv. 17, oN) ey ae 
Mill, da, | reese Ba, See yas, es 


Ghe Gud. 


Gould and Pircolu’s Gecent glublicutions, 


ROG MSI NVALVABLE Work. 


New, Revised, Enlarged and Improved Edition. 


JHESAURUS OF ENGLISH Worps, 


AND PHRASES; SO CLASSIFIED AND ARRANGED AS TO FACILITATE THE EX- 
PRESSION OF IDEAS, AND ASSIST IN LITERARY COMPOSITION, by PETER 
MARK ROGET. Revised and edited, with a List of Foreign Words defined 
in English, and other additions, by BARNAS SEARS, D. D., late President 
of Brown University. A New American Edition, with extensive Additions and 
Improvements. Royall2mo. Cloth. $2.00. 


This great and noble work of Dr. Roget, occupying his attention more than fifty years in its 
preparation, furnishes, with respect tothe English Language, a collection of the WORDS it contains, 
and of the idiomatic combinations peculiar to it, arranged (as expressed by the author) ‘‘ notin 
alphabetical order, as in a DICTIONARY, but according to ideas which they express. As one has aptly 
said, ‘‘ It gives a writer a word he wants when that word is on the tip of his tongue, but altogether 
beyond his reach.” 

It needs only to be tested in order that its real value to every one, and especially to every Literary 
man, may be fully known and appreciated. A distinguished Clergyman, the author of various popu- 
lar works, says of it, ‘‘ There is no work, save the Bible, I so highly prize as an aid in my work, as 
Roget’s Thesaurus. J use it much more frequently than the Dictionary.” Also, an eminent 
scientific man, remarked concerning it, ‘‘ No work in all my library is in such constant use.” 

In the present much enlarged, and in various respects greatly improved edition, the subject 
matter of the original work is presented ENTIRE, though with variations of arrangement and with 
numerous valuable additions; and while the Foreign Words and Phrases — Latin, French, Italian, 
Spanish, Greek—are allowed a place in the body of the work as arranged by the author, they are 
also arranged alphabetically, defined for the benefit of those only acquainted with the English 
language, at the end of the volume, thus rendering it in all respects more full and more perfect, even, 
than the author's edition! 

LIFE AND LETTERS OF HUGH MILLER. By PETER BAYNE. 
Author of ‘‘ The Christian Life.” "With a Likeness, a Bust, and Pictures of the 
Birthplace and the last Residence of Mr. Miller. 2 vols.,12mo, cloth. $4.00. 

That Hugh Miller was, intellectually, one of the greatest men of his time, is a statement which 
no candid reader of these two volumes will question. ~The man or woman who begins this work will 
find themselves too deeply interested to stop until the end is reached. It1s not only a deeply interest- 
ing but a most instructive work, and should be read by everybody, old and young. 

OUTLINES OF SIR WM. WAMILTON’S PHILOSOPHY; FOR THE 
USE OF SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES. By J. CLARK MurrRAY, Prof. Mental and 
Moral Philosophy, Queen’s College, Kingston, Canada. With an Introduction 
by JAMES McCosu, LL.D., Pres. Princeton College, N.J. 12mo. $1.50. 

Prof. Murray was a pupil of Hamilton, and is distinguished as a teacher and writer. This work 
embraces the whole range of Hamilton’s Philosophy. : 
THE BREMEN LECTURES. On Fundamental Living Religious Ques- 

tions. By a number of the ablest scholars of the day. Translated from the 

German by Rev. D. HEAGLE. 12mo, cloth. $1.75. 

CONTENTS CONSIST OF LECTURES. By Otto Zockler, D.D., Prof. at Griefswald; Rev. Hermann 
Cremer, Ostonnen; Rev. M. Fuchs, Pastor at Oppin, near Halle; Chr. E. Luthardt, D.D , Prot. of 
Tneolozy at Leipsic; Gerhard Uhlhorn, D.D., Preacher to Court of Hanover; W. F. Gess, D.D., 
Prof. at Gottingen; Constantine Tischendorf, D.D., Prof. of Theology at Leipsic; J. P. Lange, D.D., 
Prof. at Bonn; Julius Disselhof, Pastor and Inspector in Kaiserwerth. 

DAYS OF JEZEBEL. An Historical Drama, by PETER BAYNE, author of 
‘‘Christian Life, etc.” 12mo, cloth. $1.50. A work both fascinating and instructive 


27 


Gould and Ἰδιπτοῖπ 5 Recent Publications. 


A Remarkable Book. 


PE, ΠΕΡ ΟΕ Ὁ ΠΤ, 


Beanc A NARRATIVE OF THE LORD’s DEALINGS WITH GEO. MULLER, written 
by himself, with an Introduction by Francis WAYLAND, Ὁ. D. A New 
Edition, revised, enlarged and improved, and the L[listory brought down to 
the present time, by HEMAN LINCOLN, D. D., with five full-page pictures of 
the several Orphan Houses. 12mo, cloth. $1.75. 


The wonderful history of Mr. MULLER and his work in Bristol, England, furnish an emphatic 
reply to PRor. TYNDALL’S demand for proof of the value of prayer in common life. Since the com- 
mencement of Mr. Muller's amazing ‘‘ work of faith and labor of love,” he has received, and from _ 
every quarter of the globe, as he affirms in ANSWER TO PRAYER (no one having ever been solicited 
to contribute a dollar), over $2,500,000, and by means of which, five buildings for the accommodation 
of 2050 orphans have been erected and furnished, and the orphans fed, clothed and educated, ete. 

During the past year (1872) 65 Schools were sustained and 21 Schools were aided. In all, since 
the commencement, there have been 27,488 scholars (16,455 in day, 6,275 Sunday and 4,758 in adult 
schools), besides numerous other schools, in various parts of England, Ireland, Scotland, British 
Guiana, the West and East Indies, either sustained or aided. 75,392 Bibles, and 148,789 of other 
portions of the Scriptures, in various languages, have been circulated. In addition to the above, 
there were during the year 1872, Books and Tracts to the number of 2,562,000 circulated; and, since 
1840, more than forty-two and a half millions, at a cost of $105,000. 

During the year 1872 there were 187 Missionaries sustained entirely or in part; laboring in 
** word and doctrine” in various parts of the world, viz.: England, France, Switzerland, Belgium, 
China, Guiana, Canada, Nova Scotia, ete., at an expense of $58,000, and in all for this department 
$581,690. With these Missionaries Mr. Muller corresponds, and from whom during the past year, he 
has received more than 600 letters, some of a very deeply interesting character. 

Notwithstanding the great responsibility and vast expenditure of Mr. Muller's operations, he says 
in his last report, ‘‘ We want nothing, the work goes steadily on. Faith is above circumstances, no 
war, no fire, no water, no mercantile panic, no loss of friends, no death is permitted to touch it. It 
triumphs over all difficulties.” 

Yet Mr. Muller does not sit down, and, quietly folding his arms, as some would have it, pray the 
Lord to send him the means of support for himself, his helpers, and his more than two thousand 
Orphans, etc., etc. Heisan earnest worker. Dr. E. N. Sawtell, Chaplain to British and American 
Seamen, at Havre, France, well known in this country, after a visit of three weeks at Mr. Muller's 
establishment, says ‘‘the amount of labor he performs is amazing, and the almost endless variety 
would render insane, one would think, most other men; yet he is never ruffled, never looks anxious 
or out of temper, always calm and placid, and in a prayerful frame of mind, casting all his care upon 
the Lord who careth for him. I doubt whether I shall ever see his like again this side of heaven. 


GOD WITH US; or, the Person and Work of Christ. With an Examination 
of ‘THE VICARIOUS SACRIFICE” of Dr. Bushnell. By ALVAH HoveEY, D.D., 
President of Newton Theol. Institution. 12mo, cloth. $1.50. 

This is a most able, thorough, instructive, and very timely work. 

IN CHRIST; or, The Believer’s Union with his Lord. By A. J. GORDON, 
Pastor of the Clarendon St. Church, Boston. 12mo, cloth. $1.50. 
ug A volume full of the ‘‘ seed of things,” fresh, vigorous and instructive. To those “ looking 

unto Jesus,” it will prove intensely interesting, and yield refreshing as ‘' water to a thirsty soul.” 

SEEDS AND SHEA¥ES; or. Words of Scripture, their History, ard 
Fruits. By Rev. A. ©. Tuompson, D.D., author of ‘* The Better Land,” * The 
Mercy Seat,” ‘* Lyra Celestis,” εἴς. 12mo, cloth. $1.75. 

A work unique, interesting and instructive, giving illustrations of the use which God has made 
of particular passages of his word. The biography of certain texts of Scripture is more wonderful 
and more valuable than the biography of a hero. 


28 


Seanad ame errr epee) «eo! ππὶ tiger ΔΑΛῈ Ἢ mh ἡ, 
πε ἃς gree MIM CAT eH sercettea Beers μὰ ci για ob ΟΝ 
eet? thrid νυ τῶν Nine chevron Dim dort apse νος i 
nei ΞΡ δ᾽ mth ‘They ao (δὲ mercer! tC tee ; γον: Served nti is Ἢ 


ἊΝ 4 fare ated aoe ae: i? nore yuh ote » ja ; A 


ree ΣΡ bases Δα 'ὥνν Aiken cP Ae ἡ Aw Whee ed iff vy 7 ae 
PAA rears ἡ nares ose Vise ele oP depen Leone Vtg tepht ΕΣ ae 
i. pia)! at αν Ὁ alter iors ores "νον ἐν adie ae Yer wera αν ᾿ 
iden ead πε κα δ iano er 7 μήν» φ΄ ἐπ etek Aa) emit A nt QDs γε eR 
δον» WIR pe Adie gea a ea 2h ee sgt ape ἀπ sven εἴν ὀυρόννοα οτος Ue 


Gee as bke deca sdvbs aden ee ogee ᾿υσεδηι νυν bat. Dv ree yea eee naar ὥρας te, 


of ce eee Cre PO be dr these wa ote ern de TP. oy See γα ΠΥ Ὁ ae ᾿ 
. See rete. mo abt! Be, a Feder ὡ Oe tee cet! awst? pretense were 4 4 
Rowdy μοι Batt x pa κὸν PP chet eer! “ὦ gtieett ἪΝ  eqct § alee νον αὐδὰν ΣΝ δι 
ere EC vie: hI WRK Auten erie Ot eer, pent woe ie “(ὦ peated 1) a Ms 
ie ethernet αὐθορον ok beled εἼτι" teen auth cerry aware 0 ates eR νον ον a 
A, ‘es hwias hare es νὼ $6 Δ χα «δ a? amet? ρυϊμ δια ΕΣ “Ἐκ τἢ ὦ το δεν om 
i REDE νυν a IKE (eR NAA Nien tog te), OY eA δ. 
bee Ay bet het aaa νοῦν a aw vg em whee Ate parE 2 τὶ : 
Pree we steer Seah tah: - adi mare AAFP Writ 09: ὧν. vt” sag tveveties bar ἀν, 
td ΡῈ ΤΣ εἰ Rta ΠΩ ΣΦ FF Kia pret. ted. ms), δος 
apiece FAN «8 Tit ee εν 
vada νος τ δὲ. Nive ay 4 ‘ vy AR Σ yarn ae 
libido TET nee eee ane τὴ eal? σθαι "yn Asie “Ὡς σα φυνσξ ὦ 
Ne od γον el ΘΘΘΝ δῈ. ὴν std ny? Nea jeep et’ Mab ΤῊ 
τνμμβααλρημρυ ινθλαν, νημονμπτιμενοὶς ACS piety, bait NAT γος ἐγ Tp ἐν ba, os λν 
| “adeeb δὰ yee 
Betiere, ba weed, ne eee ἐπα ΣΟ ἢ a 
ἐγ Atlanene ary ete ke ἀν δου EF rth tion Wie 
Ἢ i pl ier ae ohm eee γε Δ a: ae 5. 
φάει ψεν, .: ER pra lier 9 32, be Ip e ETRE Oe) Stes et ψα Εὖ jovettin peouaeaa 
δήλων ον νσερολ ύνθνμι, (gener: ει τῆς κε Wyte tae or γεν eee , 
, Tapers 90 εἰυνηρϑατοῃᾳ ehahAey. cies nits depeche ee eee onsceet Via ὐττας τος 
RN baligae τυνρινε το οὐ tesa see: hana MI ete iret 
ἐρειλένυρέσι. 08 dike κῶν Wee Sten Σ ναδρηκεν dhe ἡ σαν ae hie 
δεν DIET Lovee pe hte trae cee eet one AT, west ὁ 
‘ ae pees *: 
oa Bontieatl ati ctor” ‘ert eee ὐοεκλο δὲ οὐ τν ἈΦ ἘΝ Ce nay 
ν᾽ eas γ᾽ awiss ASG pone ernie avenge wth - Wetec Υ MS ie ’ 
wteaie tyne Can hie get ον. Cypen tent node pean a OF Ἕ ti 
ἢ oh eel ρα yeni! yer tT oso 24 
ΞΗΡᾺ cong estat! ολδυνξδυ}) napete ae 
; ener teant nwo mek site ἢ iigiahs Be lowe? ἐμέν So Th 
᾿ ἘΜῈ My ee ae ‘eae ΜΝ ppuerie: ~ 


ine: heey iar ec . 
ἘΣΎ ΧΩΣΣ ven? caress ea Owen Aer hs Aw 
a ay δ “A i ’ Deter Me's 


; ἣν ia. 

γᾷ, Au Ly a. a pach 

ΤΥ cae 

᾿ ἮΙ a 

ARAN grag tap 
err δ μα κων: 


᾿ ἫΝ apr. Feats νεῶν, 


’ νομὰς 

ἼΣΩΣ: 
ΩΝ hime 
Md 
ἐμ Som 8 i, 


hos 
Se ΟῚ ᾿ 


“οἱ Ὗ Aas aie παρ 
ὁ ἐπὴν vowed) 


ΓΗ͂Ν, 


i ei i a 
a) Aa tng aR 


1 a ap fants — 


γνῷ 


%, 
ai 
ἐξ 


me 
ak 
he ep 
ΠΌΛΕΩΝ 
ΔῊΝ 
oe) ' - 
od γ᾽ 
“ee, 


ae 
=~ 


ko 


i Pele ¢ 
a 


ΡΝ 


Eat Nae RET ome ED 


i ard i nan Saat ea Nn a nea 


ms Dre 5 fang can eects 
RSS SS ee aa SIME  ος See 


“get es ee A aE, αν ἌΣ CO NT OO RI 5 Ee gh ee eK υΔ ΩΣ Eee ee ne een κα Nes arp Be ih Sa Se: τ “a i ᾿ ; a 
Satie nal cola aan a σεν νυν νον τσ LR NT “τος VL eM MSE LO cel eA nt NET a Ra MeN NEL tent EMail At aL oD It TBS A oN ett aaa aC mn ate PE a abana sn bacon eet gull E ialet 5s hry Sedo utndttmn a SO eae 


~, 
«oy, 


¥; ἢ τ 


Ψ 


st 
ἢ 


τῇ 


δ 


<a 


tons 


ee 


RR 


wee 
Reena 
74D eS a. 
aay vey ae 7 
Ges 
TY) St 
Deak 


We 


ow 


arene 


Sony 


on taoe 


tee 


A, 


Bowe Hees Sa SS 
a < ἣ - 
SRS ΟΝ Σ : χ Sa 
: μὰς aaa 
: eee 


cred ν 


ὍΣΣ 
Soy iat 


* 


thes Se Sia 
as seed TERNS 


RELIG rae ya teaaron het 


eI NOE OT 
SNA SA ASE LAAT bela We 


